[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 25516-25539]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



            BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1999--Resumed


                           Amendment No. 2298

              (Purpose: To provide a complete substitute)

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I 
ask for its consideration.

[[Page 25517]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for himself, 
     Mr. Torricelli, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
     Bingaman, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. Kerry, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2298.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')


                Amendment No. 2299 To Amendment No. 2298

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2299 to amendment No. 2298.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Thomas Paine, the famed orator of the 
American Revolution, once offered an explanation for why corrupt 
systems last so long. He said:

       A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a 
     superficial appearance of being right, and raises, at first, 
     a formidable cry in defense of custom.

  That is certainly true of the way we pay for campaigns in this 
country. Our reliance on special interest money to run political 
campaigns is such an old habit that for a long time it had the 
superficial appearance of being right but not anymore.
  While there is still a vocal minority who deny it, a clear majority 
in this Congress, and an overwhelming majority of the American people, 
know that our current campaign finance system is broken.
  The American people understand that special-interest money too often 
determines who runs, who wins, and how they govern.
  Opponents of change tell us that no one cares much about campaign 
finance reform.
  I believe they're mistaken.
  I believe the tide has turned.
  Instead of hearing a ``formidable cry in defense of custom,'' to use 
Tom Paine's expression, what we are hearing now is a growing demand for 
change.
  One of the newest voices demanding change belongs to a group of more 
than 200 CEOs of major corporations. They call themselves the Committee 
for Economic Development, and many of them are Republican. They're 
pushing for a ban on soft money because, they say, they're ``tired of 
being shaken down'' by politicians looking for campaign contributions.
  They, like the rest of America, will be watching this debate, Mr. 
President.
  Another reason I believe the tide has turned is because this election 
cycle has gotten off to such an ominous start.
  At both the Presidential and congressional level, we are on pace to 
shatter all previous records.
  During the first six months of this year, soft money donations--the 
unlimited, unregulated contributions to political parties--were already 
80 percent above where they were at this point in the last Presidential 
election cycle, in 1995.
  There really are no limits any more, Mr. President. We all know that.
  The current system is more loophole than law.
  Opponents argue that our Constitution forbids us from correcting the 
worst abuses in the system. I disagree with their pinched 
interpretation of our Constitution. In any case, I believe our 
conscience demands that we at least try to fix the system.
  And so during this debate, Senator Torricelli and I, and others, will 
offer the Shays-Meehan plan.
  As I said, I have great admiration and respect for what Senator 
Feingold and Senator McCain have attempted to achieve. But I believe we 
can--and must--go further than their bill now allows.
  Shays-Meehan is fair. It does not place one party or another at an 
advantage. It treats incumbents and challengers in both parties fairly.
  Shays-Meehan is bipartisan.
  Shays-Meehan is passable. It has already passed the House. It is 
signable. The President will sign it into law.
  Most importantly, Shays-Meehan is comprehensive. Not only does it ban 
unregulated ``soft money'' to political parties--the biggest loophole 
in the current system--it also prevents soft money from being re-
channeled to outside groups for phony ``issue ads.''
  This is critically important, Mr. President.
  Spending on sham ``issue ads'' by advocacy groups and special 
interests more than doubled between the '96 and '98 election cycles--to 
somewhere between $275 million and $340 million.
  A 1997 study by the respected Annenberg Public Policy Center at the 
University of Pennsylvania found that phony ``issue ads'' are nearly 
identical to campaign ads--with two exceptions. The ``issue ads'' are 
more attack-oriented and personal. And, it is harder to identify the 
sponsor. These ads epitomize the negative campaigning--without any 
accountability--the public so dislikes.
  Shays-Meehan closes the ``issue ad'' loophole. It does so by applying 
existing rules to ads targeting specific candidates that are run by 
advocacy groups within 60 days of an election.
  It does not silence anyone. It merely says, if you want to 
participate in the election process, you have to follow the rules.
  In addition to closing the ``soft money'' and ``issue ad'' loopholes, 
Shays-Meehan makes two other important changes.
  First, it provides for expanded and speedier disclosure of both 
campaign contributions and expenditures--plus, stiffer penalties for 
anyone who violates the requirements.
  Second, it bans direct and indirect foreign contributions to 
political campaigns.
  Shays-Meehan won a bipartisan majority in the other body, Mr. 
President. It deserves the same in this Senate.
  When a person gives money to a judge who is deciding his case, we 
call that bribery. But when special interests give money to politicians 
who vote on bills that help or hurt them, we call that ``business as 
usual.''
  Some mistakenly call it ``free speech.''
  Let's be very clear: Shays-Meehan is not an attack on free speech. It 
advances free speech by ensuring that those with the biggest checkbooks 
are not the only voices that are heard.
  Shays-Meehan represents extraordinarily modest reforms.
  It doesn't fix every problem with our current system. But it bans the 
worst excesses.
  It is not a panacea. But it is a credible and necessary first step in 
rebuilding people's trust in government.
  I have no doubt we will hear a great deal over the next few days 
about abuses of the current system.
  There are abuses--on both sides of the aisle. That's why we're having 
this debate.
  But it's not enough just to decry the abuses. If you're really 
outraged by the abuses, fix the system that invites them.
  Defenders of the status quo have tried to dissuade some of us from 
supporting real reform by warning how much it might cost us in lost 
campaign contributions.
  What about how much the current system costs us in lost credibility?
  Listen to this quote:

       Senators and Representatives, faced incessantly with the 
     need to raise ever more funds to fuel their campaigns, can 
     scarcely avoid weighing every decision against the question 
     ``How will this affect my fundraising prospects.'' rather 
     than ``How will this affect the national interest?''

  Do you know who said that?
  It wasn't some Pollyanna progressive.
  That was Barry Goldwater, in 1995.
  And even if we don't make those kinds of calculations, it doesn't 
matter. No one has to prove that money influences our votes. It's 
damaging

[[Page 25518]]

enough that people believe money influences our votes.
  There are other ways the current system costs us as well. Like the 
cost of endless fundraising. The demeaning, demanding money chase.
  In 1998, it cost an average of $4.9 million to run a successful 
Senate campaign.
  To raise that kind of money, you have to bring nearly $16,000 a week, 
every week, for 6 years. That is the minimum it takes. Some people have 
to raise twice that much.
  And we all know what that means. It means we spend hours and hours in 
campaign offices, dialing for dollars, instead of doing what people 
sent us here to do.
  It means running to fundraisers every night--sometimes two and three 
a night--instead of working on problems that affect families--or maybe 
just having dinner every once in a while with our own families.
  But the biggest cost of the current system is the cynicism it 
produces in people.
  The American people are disgusted, and they feel disenfranchised, by 
the current system.
  Every election cycle, the amount of money goes up, and voting goes 
down.
  Defenders of the status quo say we need soft money for ``party 
building'' activities--like ``get out the vote'' drives.
  If you really want to get out the vote, get the money out of 
politics!
  Pass Shays-Meehan.
  We expect opponents will use every procedural trick and advantage 
they can think of to try to block any real reform. They will offer 
amendments not to strengthen our proposal, but to sink it.
  They should know: The American people understand that game. They can 
tell the differences between protecting principles, and protecting 
partisan advantage.
  We make this pledge at the beginning of this debate: If Shays-Meehan 
does not pass, we will do everything we can to build a coalition for 
real reform.
  We will work with Senator Feingold and Senator McCain to strengthen 
their proposal and make it, once again, a comprehensive plan.
  When you read the history of campaign finance, one of the names that 
stands out is Mark Hanna. U.S. Senator. Wealthy businessman. Ohio 
political boss. And head, at the turn of the last century, of his 
national political party.
  Mark Hanna is widely credited with being the father of systemic 
campaign fundraising techniques.
  He introduced the concept, for instance, of regularly assessing 
businesses for contributions to his party, based on their ``share in 
the general prosperity.''
  He also introduced the first modern political advertising operation.
  In 1895, Mark Hanna remarked that ``there are two things that are 
important in politics. The first is money--and I can't remember what 
the second one is.''
  Mr. President, I believe Senator Hanna got it wrong. Money isn't the 
most important thing in politics. Integrity is.
  Integrity is essential to democracy. Without integrity we lose public 
confidence. And without public confidence, a democratic government 
loses its ability to function.
  We all know--whether we will admit it or not--that the current system 
is broken.
  I hope we can work together. I hope we can come up with a 
comprehensive, workable plan to fix it.
  The currency of politics should be ideas--not cash.


                            Cloture Motions

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send two cloture motions to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion to invoke 
cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Daschle 
     amendment, No. 2298, to S. 1593:
         Tom Daschle, Chuck Robb, Mary L. Landrieu, Joseph 
           Lieberman, Jack Reed, Max Baucus, Barbara Boxer, 
           Richard H. Bryan, Jeff Bingaman, Tim Johnson, Harry 
           Reid, Robert G. Torricelli, Blanche L. Lincoln, Dianne 
           Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Richard J. Durbin, Daniel 
           K. Akaka, Ron Wyden, Byron L. Dorgan, and Tom Harkin.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second cloture 
motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reid of 
     Nevada amendment No. 2299:
         Tom Daschle, Chuck Robb, Barbara Boxer, Joseph Lieberman, 
           Jack Reed, Richard H. Bryan, Jeff Bingaman, Tim 
           Johnson, Harry Reid, Blanche L. Lincoln, Dianne 
           Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Richard J. Durbin, Daniel 
           K. Akaka, Ron Wyden, Byron L. Dorgan, Tom Harkin, and 
           Barbara Mikulski.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support 
for the amendment offered by the minority leader and the Senator from 
New Jersey. As you know, this amendment is almost identical to the 
Shays-Meehan bill that passed the House of Representatives by a 
decisive, bipartisan vote of 252-177. It is time for the Senate to show 
the same courage and pass this important legislation.
  As I enter my eleventh political campaign and my fourth California 
statewide election, I am one who knows a little about the dynamics of 
campaigning in expensive races. In the 1990 race for Governor, I had to 
raise about $23 million. In the first race the Senate, $8 million; in 
the second race, $14 million. In 1994, my opponent spent nearly $30 
million in his attempt to defeat me. My experiences have led me to 
believe that the current campaign finance system is badly flawed and in 
need of overhaul.
  Since 1976, the first election after the last major revision of 
campaign finance laws, the average cost of a winning Senate race went 
from $609,000 to $3.8 million in 1998. The average cost for a winning 
House candidate rose from $87,000 in 1976 to $679,000 in 1998.
  Campaigns in 2000 are very different than they were in 1976. Clearly, 
our campaign finance system must be reformed to reflect these 
differences.
  I have been a strong supporter of federal campaign finance reform 
since my first election to the Senate. Campaigns simply cost too much 
and it is long past time that Congress does something about it.
  I believe very strongly that this will be the final real opportunity 
this millennium to make significant structural reforms to our campaign 
finance system. Two of the fundamental changes that I believe must be 
made are a complete ban on soft money contributions to political 
parties and making independent campaign ads subject to contribution 
limits and disclosure requirements as are a candidate's campaign ads.
  While I have a great deal of respect for the persistence the Senators 
from Arizona and Wisconsin have demonstrated in pushing the Senate to 
act on campaign finance reform, I am concerned that the underlying 
bill, S. 1953, is too narrow to constitute a real reform of the 
campaign finance system. Banning soft money without addressing issue 
advocacy will simply redirect the flow of undisclosed money in 
campaigns. Instead of giving soft money to political parties, the same 
dollars will be turned into ``independent'' ads.
  The issues of soft money ban and independent advertisements go hand 
in hand and one can not be addressed without the other.


                             soft money ban

  The ability of corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to give 
unlimited amounts of soft money to political parties is the largest 
single loophole in the current campaign finance structure. The lack of 
restrictions on soft money enables anonymous individuals and anonymous 
organizations to play a major role in campaigns. They can hit hard and 
no one knows from where the hit is coming. The form that soft money is 
increasingly taking is negative, attack ads that distort, mislead, and 
misrepresent a candidates position on issues. These ads have become the 
scourge of the electoral process.

[[Page 25519]]

  This is the third time in as many years that the Senate has had the 
opportunity to pass meaningful campaign finance legislation. Last year, 
a minority of Senators blocked its passage and they appear poised to do 
so again.
  The consequence of this action is clear: voters will continue to 
become disenchanted with the political process and the flow of money 
into campaigns and the access it buys will continue to grow.
  The numbers speak for themselves. According to the Federal Election 
Commission, the Republican party raised $131 million in soft money 
during the 1998 election cycle. That is a 149 percent increase over the 
last mid-term election in 1994. The Democratic party is not much 
better. We raised $91.5 million, a 89 percent increase.
  Soft money contributions are continuing to rise. In the first 6 
months of this year, Republicans raised $30.9 million. 42 percent more 
than in the first six months of the 1997-98 election cycle. Democrats 
raised $26.4 million, a 93 percent increase.
  One organization, Public Citizen, estimates that soft money spending 
this election cycle will exceed $500 million. That is double the amount 
spent in the last presidential election cycle and six times as much as 
in 1992.
  At some point this escalation of campaign spending has got to stop. 
We simply cannot continue down this path. A complete ban on soft money 
contributions to political parties is the first and most basic way to 
reduce the amount of money in our campaigns.


                             issue advocacy

  That brings me to the other disturbing trend in the American 
political system: the rise of issue advocacy. This campaign loophole 
allows unions, corporations, and wealthy individuals to influence 
elections without being subject to disclosure or expenditure 
restrictions.
  During last year's debate, I mentioned a study released by the 
Annenberg Public Policy Center that estimated that during the 1995-96 
election cycle independent groups spent between $135 and $150 million 
on issue advocacy.
  The Center has done a similar study for the 1997-98 cycle and the 
result is quite disturbing. They estimate that the amount spent on 
issue advocacy more than doubled to between $275 million and $340 
million.
  These ads do not use the so-called ``magic words'' that the Supreme 
Court identified as express advocacy and, therefore, are not subject to 
FEC regulation. The Annenberg study found, however, that 53.4 percent 
of the issue ads mentioned a candidate up for election.
  The Center found another unfortunate twist to issue advocacy. Prior 
to September 1, 1998, that is in the first 22 months of the election 
cycle, only 35.3 percent of issue ads mentioned a candidate and 81.3 
percent of the ads referred to a piece of legislation or a regulatory 
issue.
  After September 1, 1998, during the last 2 months of the campaign, a 
dramatic shift occurred. The proportion of ads naming specific 
candidates rose to 80.1 percent and those mentioning legislation fell 
to 21.6 percent.
  A similar shift can be seen in terms of attack ads. Prior to 
September 1, 33.7 percent of all ads were attack oriented. After 
September 1, over half were.
  These findings clearly demonstrate that as election day gets closer, 
issue ads become more candidate oriented and more negative. This kind 
of unregulated attack advertisements are poisoning the process and 
driving voters away from the polls.
  The amendment offered by the minority leader defines ``express 
advocacy'' communications as advocating election or defeat of candidate 
by: First, using explicit phrases, words, or slogans that have no other 
reasonable meaning than influence elections; second, referring to a 
candidate in a paid radio or TV broadcast ad that runs within 60 days 
of election; or third, expressing unmistakable, unambiguous election 
advocacy.
  This provision draws a clear line between true issue advertising and 
electioneering activities. It is an important part of any real reform 
effort and I applaud the minority leader for seeing that we have an 
opportunity to vote on it.


                              other issues

  This amendment also contains a number of important issues that are 
not contained in the underlying bill. I understand the sponsors of the 
bill removed them in an attempt to force a straight up or down vote on 
the soft money ban. I do feel, however, that some of these provisions 
will significantly improve the campaign finance system and are worth 
mentioning.
  The bill mandates electronic filing; allows the FEC to conduct random 
audits of campaigns within 12 months of an election; makes it easier 
for the FEC to initiate enforcement action; and increases penalties for 
knowing and willful violations of election law.
  This amendment would lower the threshold for disclosure of 
contributions from $200 to $50. It would prevent candidates from 
depositing contributions of $200 if the disclosure requirements are not 
complete. It would also require the FEC to post contribution 
information on the Internet within 24 hours of receipt.
  These are commonsense steps to making our elections more open to the 
public. Voters are increasingly feeling cut out of the political 
process. By allowing an open window into our campaigns, we can begin 
the process of reconnecting with voters.
  In closing, Mr. President, I want to again thank the Senators from 
Arizona and Wisconsin. Without their leadership on this issue we would 
not have come as far as we have.
  This body is now faced with a choice. We have been at this same point 
several times in the last couple of years and each time we have failed 
to act and each time the American public has grown more cynical and 
lost more confidence in their government.
  With the passing of every election, it becomes more and more clear 
that our campaign system desperately needs reform. I remain hopeful 
that this is the year that Congress can finally come together in 
support of legislation that brings about a real improvement in our 
campaign system. Let's make the first election of the twenty-first 
century one of which we can be proud. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I regret that I cannot support this 
amendment at this time. I want to make it clear why.
  The amendment would essentially restore all of the provisions of S. 
26, which is the original McCain-Feingold legislation to this bill. I 
still support those provisions and strongly believe that most, if not 
all, should be enacted into law. Now is not the time to do so.
  My good friend, Russ Feingold, and I spent much time debating as to 
how we could move forward on the subject of campaign finance reform. 
We, along with many others who have supported this effort for many 
years, came to the conclusion that some reform is better than no 
reform. Unfortunately, if this amendment is adopted, a political point 
will be made, but reform will be doomed, and the sponsors of this 
present amendment are very well aware of that.
  We all know there are 52 votes for S. 26. We all know that. We went 
through a long period of debate and amending. We know there are 52 
votes. Tell me where the additional 8 votes are for S. 26, and I will 
be the first to sign on and support this.
  I ask my dear friends who just propounded what is basically McCain-
Feingold, where are the votes? I think the answer is obvious.
  What we have tried to do in proposing a ban on soft money and a 
codification of that is to start a process which has succeeded in this 
great deliberative body over many years with amendments and disposal of 
amendments, up or down, and improving the bill but letting the Senate 
work its will. We have already picked up one additional vote. I am told 
there are other Members on this side of the aisle who are considering 
supporting this legislation.
  But it is also clear that those same people who are leaning towards 
supporting would not vote for S. 26 in its

[[Page 25520]]

entirety because of their strongly held--although I don't agree, I 
respect their views--view that the independent campaign aspect of the 
original McCain-Feingold has constitutional difficulties associated 
with it.
  We know the facts. We need 60 votes to prevail, and 52, while a 
majority, is not enough and will not be until the rules of the Senate 
are changed where 51 votes are necessary for passage.
  For some time, I hoped that my colleagues who oppose reform would 
allow a majority in both bodies to prevail and do what the vast 
majority of the American public desires. But the opponents of reform, 
defenders of the status quo, won't cede their rights.
  I have learned from previous debates on other matters not to let the 
perfect be the enemy of the good. The bill before the Senate represents 
a modest step but a very important step forward.
  I want to emphasize that point again. If we can pass the underlying 
bill, we will have made an extremely important and vitally needed step 
forward.
  There is no observer of this issue of campaign finance reform who 
does not disagree that banning of soft money would have an important 
and salutary effect on the evils and ills of the present campaign 
finance system. There is no objective observer, whether they are for or 
against campaign finance reform, who would deny that the single act 
about allowing soft money would have a significant effect on the 
present system.
  Do I personally desire that a more comprehensive bill be passed into 
law? Yes. In my 16 years in the Congress, I have learned to be a 
realist.
  Simply put, if this amendment is accepted, campaign finance reform 
will be dead. There will be no reform this year and most likely next 
year. During that period, I am sure that more loopholes in the current 
system will be found and exploited. Public cynicism will have grown 
and, unfortunately, nothing will have changed except the same political 
points will have been made once again and, undoubtedly, more and more 
money will be awash in our political process.
  The New York Times had it right on 14 October. Let me quote:

       An important but little-noticed boost was given to campaign 
     finance reform in the Senate this week. Sam Brownback of 
     Kansas became the eighth Republican to break with his party's 
     leadership and support the McCain-Feingold soft-money ban, 
     scheduled for debate today. There are now 53 votes to choke 
     off a Republican-led filibuster and pass the bill, only seven 
     votes short of what is needed. The pressure is mounting on 
     other Republicans to support reform. But amid these favorable 
     developments, a move by Robert Torricelli and some other 
     Democratic supporters of reform could undercut the cause.
       The risk is posed by a Democratic attempt to block Senators 
     John McCain and Russell Feingold from advancing a stripped-
     down version of their reform legislation. The new McCain-
     Feingold bill would omit a section preventing independent 
     groups from raising unlimited money for sham campaign ads two 
     months before an election. Some Republicans say that because 
     that section threatens free speech, they cannot go along with 
     the central objective of reform, which is to ban unlimited 
     donations to campaigns waged by political parties. Shrinking 
     the bill to a simple soft-money ban for parties has paid off. 
     Senator Brownback is on board and other Senate Republicans 
     may follow.
       Mr. Torricelli and the Democratic Senate leader, Tom 
     Daschle, are nonetheless determined today to scrap the new 
     McCain-Feingold bill and substitute the original bill, with 
     the limits on independent groups. This is a serious tactical 
     mistake that raises questions about the Democrats' commitment 
     to campaign finance reform. They ought to know that the bill 
     they are pushing does not have the votes to break a 
     filibuster, whereas the revised McCain-Feingold bill has a 
     chance of getting them.
       It would be especially grievous if their move played into 
     the destructive tactics of Senator Mitch McConnell of 
     Kentucky and other Republican foes of reform. Mr. McConnell 
     might even try to deliver enough votes for the Democratic 
     move, allowing it to pass because in the end the bill in that 
     form will surely die.
       Some Democrats, noting that the House passed its broader 
     Shays-Meehan reform last month, warn that a narrower bill in 
     the Senate will not survive either. But Mr. Brownback's 
     courageous move makes it worth a try.

  Mr. President, I think the New York Times has it right. I think we 
should determine that this would be viewed by many as a cynical ploy 
which would assure the failure of campaign finance reform.
  I believe we need to vote down this amendment, return to what has 
given those who have been laboring on this issue for many years, some 
optimism, and to go back to a process where there are amendments on the 
specific issues. If we correctly debate and amend this issue, each one 
of those provisions of the original provisions of McCain-Feingold will 
be brought up for consideration, voted, and the body will work its 
will.
  It is abundantly clear that if this amendment is adopted, it is the 
end of campaign finance reform. Have no doubt about the effect of this 
amendment. No one should have any doubt about the effect of this 
amendment. I hope that is well understood by Americans all over this 
country who have committed themselves, people such as ``Granny D,'' who 
yesterday visited with me and Senator Feingold. She has walked across 
this country. People have committed themselves to reforming this 
system. People such as her all over America deserve better than what is 
being done with this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, every Senator who has taken the floor 
has given the appropriate compliments to Senator Feingold and Senator 
McCain. I will be no exception. Congress has been considering campaign 
finance reform for more than a decade. There have been, by my 
estimation, 3,000 speeches made on the floor of the Senate for campaign 
finance reform, some 6,500 pages of Congressional Record, 300 pieces of 
legislation. Indeed, we would not be at this moment without Senator 
Feingold or Senator McCain. They deserve that credit.
  I found their arguments in recent years so persuasive that I am today 
joining Senator Daschle in presenting their own legislation. The 
original McCain-Feingold bill, which found its way to the House of 
Representatives, is before the Senate now as the Shays-Meehan 
legislation. Similar in content and purpose, it is comprehensive 
campaign finance reform.
  Regarding advocacy of that reform, I take a second place to no Member 
in my years in the Congress. I have never voted against campaign 
finance reform, and I never will. I believe the integrity of this 
system of government and the confidence of the American people is at 
issue. It is not by chance that only a third of the American people are 
participating in some elections. Even in the choice of the Presidency 
of the United States, with those not registered and those not choosing 
to vote in many of our localities and States, half of the American 
people are not participating. It is not that they do not recognize the 
choice is important. I do not believe they have a lack of confidence in 
our country. They do not respect the process because they believe they 
do not have an equal position, and it is money that is the heart of 
that problem.
  When we entered into this new phase of campaign finance reform 2 
years ago, along with most Members of this institution, I had great 
ambitions for how far we could go with reform. Indeed, in private 
conversation, almost every Member of this Senate knows the fundamentals 
of comprehensive reform. We started with such ambition. We were going 
to subject all independent advocacy groups in issue advertising to the 
rules of the FEC. We were going to require full and immediate 
disclosure by all contributors. We were going to ban soft money to the 
political parties. We were going to prohibit foreign interests. We were 
going to reduce the cost of television time. We even discussed the 
subsidies of mail to inform voters.
  One by one almost every one of these reforms has been eliminated from 
the legislation. Political cultures in all of our States are different. 
In my State, in Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas, and 
California, I don't believe real campaign finance reform is possible 
without reducing the cost of television advertising. There is a reason 
for the spiraling rise of campaign

[[Page 25521]]

spending; it is the cost of television advertising. In each of the 
large metropolitan areas, 90 percent of the money goes to feed the 
television networks. That was the first reform to be eliminated.
  Then there was the advocacy of subsidized mail. It went the way of 
public finance--one by one by one. Yet, because the need for reform is 
so overwhelming and the public confidence is so much in question, I 
joined in the last Congress with Senator McCain and Senator Feingold 
and reluctantly supported their legislation. Although I believe these 
critical provisions for the reduced cost of television advertising were 
essential for reform in my area of the country, I joined in support of 
the McCain-Feingold. That was to be followed by the House of 
Representatives which reached the same judgment in a historic vote for 
Shays-Meehan.
  That brings the Senate to this moment. In a frustration I share with 
other advocates of campaign finance reform, the mantra of the day has 
become: Do something, do anything. Pass some legislation. Call it 
reform. Let's put the problem behind us.
  If only it were so easy.
  The new legislation presented by Senators McCain and Feingold has a 
single objective: to eliminate soft money fundraising from Democratic 
and Republican Parties. It is a worthwhile objective, but it does raise 
the prospect that if passed it will eliminate the chance to have any 
further campaign finance reform. If history is any guide, every decade 
we get one chance to redesign this system. We are largely still 
governed by the Watergate reforms of 1974. Through a series of court 
rulings and FEC decisions, they clearly are no longer producing a 
system that was once envisioned. If we institute but this single 
change, we will not create a new system of our design but, in my 
judgment, be governed by the law of unintended consequences.
  Let's look for a moment at this new national campaign system. If 
Senator Daschle and I fail and the House of Representatives legislation 
in Shays-Meehan is rejected and instead we adopt this very narrow 
reform as envisioned by Senators McCain and Feingold, we eliminate soft 
money fundraising by the political parties, but it is maintained for 
issue advocacy and independent expenditures.
  The principal rise in campaign advertising in recent years is not the 
political parties; it is this independent advocacy expenditure. This 
chart tells the story. In 1998, the Democratic and Republican Parties 
spent $64 million in issue advocacy spending; nonparty advocacy groups 
spent $276 million, rising at a rate of 300 percent cycle to cycle.
  In my hand I have the list of 70 advocacy groups. It begins 
alphabetically with the AFL-CIO and ends with the Vietnam Veterans. In 
between are many organizations I support and believe have a worthwhile 
contribution to the national political debate; some I note I do not 
believe have great contributions to the political debate. But they are 
all heard--in the last election cycle, $276 million worth of advocacy.
  The legislation before the Senate by Senators Feingold and McCain 
does nothing about the expenditures, nothing. Nothing. Many exist as 
nonprofit tax-free organizations under the IRS Code. From whom they 
raise money is unknown. As to the sources of their contributions, no 
one in this Senate could attest. They often exist before the public eye 
as names that misrepresent their purpose and are designed to shield 
their objectives. They are not just a part of the national political 
advertising debate; they are coming to dominate it.
  What is this new campaign finance world that will be produced if 
Senator Daschle and I fail and the House of Representatives Shays-
Meehan legislation is rejected? A national political debate that is 
fought by surrogates. The Democratic and Republican Parties will be 
within FEC rules, raising money only at $1,000 per person, $50 a 
person, $100 a person--a good system, where every name will be known, 
limits will be imposed to reasonable amounts. But over our heads will 
be a far larger contest fought by the AFL-CIO, with millions more 
dollars of expenditures, the Christian Coalition, anti-abortion groups, 
chemical companies, automobile companies, steel companies, that will 
spend millions, indeed, if history now is any guide, hundreds of 
millions of dollars of advocacy.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Yesterday, in a colloquy I had with the senior Senator from 
Arizona, we established that in the very sparsely populated State of 
Nevada, in the last general election--I was a candidate, Harry Reid, 
running for election, and John Ensign, Congressman Ensign, was running 
for my seat--we spent over $20 million in our direct campaigns and in 
the soft money. That is established. You can determine how much that 
is.
  The Senator would acknowledge that; is that right?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I would.
  Mr. REID. Yet to this day, a year after the election, we do not know 
how much money was spent by these outside groups you are talking about, 
the NRA, the League of Conservation Voters, the truckers----
  Mr. TORRICELLI. You don't know how much was spent or who spent it?
  Mr. REID. No; nor where their money came from. Is that the point the 
Senator is making?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. It is the central point. The proper system is the 
full disclosures we have for the Democratic and Republican Parties; 
limit those political parties just to these hard money contributions 
within the law, but extend that to all Americans who participate in the 
national political debate.
  The fact that my colleague, as a Senator, has accounted for every 
dollar he has raised, and he did so within limits, but these major 
groups enter his State either on his behalf or against his candidacy, 
yet my colleague doesn't know who they are or where their money is 
coming from and to whom they are accountable, is the heart of the 
problem.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from New Jersey, in the election that 
was held in the State of Nevada last year, Congressman Ensign and 
Senator Reid never really campaigned because of all the outside 
influences. Our campaigns were buried in all these independent 
expenditures and State party expenditures.
  At least with my campaign, and that of the State party, anyone in the 
world can find out how much money was spent. But for the independent 
expenditures, no one in the world can find out what money was spent.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I point out to the Senator from Nevada, this is not 
simply a problem with our adversaries; sometimes it is a problem with 
our allies.
  When I go to the people of New Jersey, I want to present to them who 
I am and what I want to do, what my record is as a Senator. Groups 
whose support I am very proud of--AFL-CIO, National Abortion Rights 
League, Sierra Club, environmental groups--I am proud to have their 
support, but I don't want them presenting my campaign. Under the system 
that would be in place if Shays-Meehan were rejected, the political 
parties would be further restricted from advertising. I think they 
should be restricted with soft money. But if these advocacy groups were 
to take over, they would hijack your campaign; they would tell the 
people of your State what you were for and what you were against.
  It is not only your adversaries who will be out there presenting a 
campaign against you with these enormous amounts of money, it is even 
your allies who are not so restricted.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, in the election of 1986, when Senator 
Bryan was elected to the Senate, he was a sitting Governor at the time. 
At that time, there were these ads that came from nowhere, hundreds of 
thousands of dollars of ads in the State of Nevada. These ads were 
talking about Social Security.
  One would think these ads were run by some organization that had some 
concern about Social Security. We learned later that those ads were 
being paid for by foreign auto dealers--talking about the United States 
of America's Social Security plan. That is what

[[Page 25522]]

happens when these groups have unfettered, unrestricted ability to 
spend money on any subject they want for any cause they want.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Let me say to the Senator from Nevada, that is not 
atypical. Health care in this country has been undermined by advocacy 
of insurance companies whose principal interest is not the delivery of 
quality health care to people who are currently uninsured, but they 
stand behind these blind advertising campaigns where no one knows where 
the money comes from.
  Just as in the campaign of my colleague from Nevada, we have 
polluters who are running ads on environmental protection; we have 
people on consumer safety who are representing groups that are damaging 
to individual consumers. That is because none of these groups is 
disclosable and none is accountable.
  In the current system, bad as it is, while these groups can run these 
advertising campaigns, the political parties are also raising soft 
money and there is a chance to answer them. Now the political parties 
will no longer be able to raise these funds, but these advocacy groups 
will continue in an upward spiral of spending. Senator Daschle's point 
is, let's eliminate this gross fundraising and these soft money 
expenditures across the board within 60 days of an election by putting 
everybody under the FEC rules.
  Senator McCain has said, ``But that will not pass.'' It may not. But 
it passed in the House of Representatives, and 60 Republicans came to 
join with the Democratic majority in passing it. We are not 20 or 30 or 
40 votes from passing it in the Senate, we are 7 or 8. I would come 
back here every week of every month of every year until we restored the 
integrity of this Government and got comprehensive campaign finance 
reform.
  But the answer is not to lower our ambitions for campaign finance 
reform, to have a new, distorted system to make American politics 
fought by surrogates over the heads of candidates. The answer is to 
remain committed to this reform, reveal to the American people who is 
voting against it, who is stopping it, and let the American people 
decide.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend in conclusion--and I appreciate his 
allowing me to ask him a question or two--first of all, I hope beyond 
all hope the Shays-Meehan bill passes. That is the amendment that has 
been filed by our leader, the Democratic leader. I hope that passes. I 
am going to do everything I can to make sure that passes. I hope we 
have Republicans of goodwill who will support that legislation.
  I have offered another amendment that would eliminate soft money. I 
respect and appreciate what the Senator from New Jersey has said. 
Certainly there is merit to what he said. But I believe, as I think 
does most everyone in the Democratic conference, that even if Shays-
Meehan for some reason fails, there will be a significant number of us, 
out of desperation regarding the system that is so bad in this country, 
who will support the so-called soft money ban. I hope we do not get to 
that. I hope Shays-Meehan passes. The Senator makes a compelling case 
for what might happen. I hope something short of that will happen and 
the soft money ban will bring some reality to the system.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Nevada.
  I note the problems of which I speak are not theoretical. Groups are 
already adjusting to the possibility that there will be a soft money 
ban in the political parties but no Shays-Meehan reform. They therefore 
are adjusting to this new reality. Let me give an example.
  Congressman DeLay has now formed a group, Citizens For A Republican 
Congress. He has gone to the wealthiest donors in the Nation, promising 
them a safe haven for anonymous and limitless contributions to the 2000 
elections. He is reportedly planning on spending $25 to $30 million in 
30 competitive House races in soft money.
  So Congressman DeLay will now, if this happens in the Democratic and 
Republican Parties, personally be directing a larger advertising 
campaign than the Democratic or Republican Parties in either House of 
Congress.
  The former advisers to Congressman DeLay are also forming a 
Republican issues majority committee, which is planning on spending $25 
million.
  Already in a previous cycle, in the 1996 cycle, Americans for Tax 
Reform received $4.6 million from the Republican National Committee 
that they were able to spend on issue advocacy.
  United Seniors Association spent $3 million in direct mail in seven 
States in the 1996 election. They are an IRS tax-exempt 501(c)(4) 
social welfare organization.
  U.S. Term Limits, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charitable organization, 
spent $1.8 million in 1996;
  Americans for Limited Terms, $1.8 million in seven States;
  American Renewal, $400,000, a 501(c)(3).
  These are charitable organizations. The Tax Code has these provisions 
for people who want to help churches, synagogues, and Americans who are 
hurt and damaged, and to help build communities. They are being used as 
a cover for political advertising and no longer simply a force on the 
fringes of American politics.
  Look at the chart I have on my left: 1998 elections. Nonparty 
advocacy groups are two-thirds of all the issue ads in U.S. politics. 
The political parties, Democratic and Republican Parties, are one-
third. If the sum total of the legislation offered by Mr. McCain and 
Mr. Feingold is that we will largely eliminate this third, when a 
Senator stands here a year from now going over this same problem, this 
entire pie chart will be advocacy groups, many of them tax-free 
organizations that are hiding who is contributing to them, who is 
running them, where their money is coming from, often using disguised 
names and running surrogate campaigns over the heads of political 
candidates.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I will be happy to yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from New Jersey has 
the floor and has agreed to yield for a question from the Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me ask a question, if I can, about 
the chart I believe he has up at this time. Is the Senator from New 
Jersey aware the $276 million estimate of issue advertising in the 1998 
cycle, which the Senator has there I believe, includes all issue 
advertising, not just ads that are so-called phony issue ads? Is the 
Senator aware this chart actually covers all issue ads?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I think I said it covers all.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. It covers the Harry and Louise type of ads, tobacco ads 
and ads just related to bills that do not have anything to do with 
campaigns directly.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. It covers all of those. I do not see that because 
they are dealing with an issue, they are not otherwise intending to 
influence an election.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Fair enough. I wanted to establish that. The chart the 
Senator from New Jersey is using relates to an entire election cycle, a 
2-year period, and it covers all sorts of ads. That means all kinds of 
true issue ads and so-called phony issue ads, as well as political 
party ads, are included in his chart.
  All three categories are in there. That is the basis on which he 
makes his argument. Is he aware the Shays-Meehan bill--which, of 
course, Senator McCain and I essentially wrote in the first place--that 
he has offered as an amendment would have no effect on any ad aired 
before the last 2 months of an election campaign?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I am aware of it, and if it was my design, I would 
have it apply to issue advocacy ads throughout the calendar so everyone 
is equal. To quote Senator McCain, making the perfect the enemy of the 
good, if it is your argument that because I cannot bring all issue 
advocacy under FEC hard money limits, therefore we should do none, 
that, I think, is to surrender the point and we will not make any 
progress.

[[Page 25523]]


  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if the Senator will further yield, that 
is very interesting because it is essentially the same argument the 
Senator from New Jersey is using against the McCain-Feingold approach 
at this time which is, unless you do it all, it is not worth doing some 
because the soft money would flow to outside groups.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. My argument is, I believe, the Senator from Wisconsin 
and the Senator from Arizona are making a premature retreat. I concede 
there may not be 60 votes in the Senate today for comprehensive 
campaign finance reform, but I do believe there is mounting public 
pressure. I believe Senators who vote against comprehensive campaign 
finance reform, who will vote against us on cloture on the amendment 
offered by Senator Daschle, are accountable to the people in their 
States. In the House of Representatives 2 years ago, the passage of 
comprehensive campaign finance reform was equally unlikely. Sixty 
Republicans crossed the aisle to vote with Democrats for real reform.
  These numbers are untenable. You cannot explain to the American 
people that you allow this charade to continue of people hiding behind 
these groups and spending $1 million, $100,000 contributions that are 
not accountable.
  I respect the Senator's work, but I believe we would do better to 
remain on this. I believe, in the alternative, you are going to 
establish a system where these groups dominate American politics as you 
silence the political parties.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield for a 
question?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I would, but Senator Bennett is standing. If we could 
go to him next.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding for a 
question, and I precede the question with a comment that I think the 
Senator from New Jersey is doing us a very worthwhile service in 
pointing out the reality of the world in which we would live if soft 
money were banned for political parties but not for everybody else. I 
agree with the Senator from New Jersey, absolutely in his words, when 
he says the debate would be fought by surrogates which would take place 
over our heads, a far larger context.
  I ask the Senator to give us his opinion of what would happen if 
Shays-Meehan, which he is endorsing, were to pass and then the Supreme 
Court were to strike down as unconstitutional the ban on issue ads by 
outside groups? Would that not, in fact, then leave us with the 
situation which the Senator from New Jersey is decrying, I think 
appropriately, as a bad system?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Senator Bennett raises a very worthwhile point. 
Indeed, as Senator McConnell has noted in a number of cases, this is 
all an interesting debate. There are various sides trying to do good 
things, but the last word is in the Supreme Court, and, indeed, whether 
or not the Supreme Court will allow us to ban issue advocacy through 
soft money contributions to advocacy groups or even the political 
parties remains a question.
  If the Senator's point is correct, we could end up in the same place 
with, I will concede to you, the current McCain-Feingold if the Court 
were to do so. Senator McConnell has also pointed out it is a question 
of whether the Court will allow us to maintain the current limits on 
campaign fundraising in any case. Senators who vote on this should be 
aware that the Court, before we are concluded, will change probably 
much of what we are writing.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, if I can ask a further question of the 
Senator from New Jersey, if he is aware--I know he is aware because he 
is a very astute student of politics but maybe not aware enough to 
comment without further research--if he is aware of what has happened 
in the State of California where they have virtually unlimited 
initiative opportunities and virtually every truly contentious 
political issue is now decided by initiative rather than by the 
legislature and the amount of money that is spent in an initiative 
fight dwarfs any of the sums we are talking about here.
  In the State of California, when an initiative fight comes up over an 
issue, which traditionally would be handled by the State legislature, 
the special interests on both sides of that fight routinely go over the 
hundreds of millions of dollars on both sides of the fight which dwarf 
the amount of money spent for a senatorial or gubernatorial race in 
that State.
  I ask if the Senator is aware of some of those particulars and if he 
will comment on the implications of that on a national basis if we get 
to the point where issues are fought out by special interest groups 
with unlimited budgets being spent on both sides, the implications on 
the role of the legislature in its constitutional responsibility to 
control the legislative agenda.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. We may not be on the same side of the debate for 
comprehensive reform, but I think our dialog can help Senators 
understand the world in which we are entering, because if we, indeed, 
reject Shays-Meehan and only go to this narrow reform, that single 
adjustment is going to change the American political debate as we know 
it. The Senator has raised some of the means by which it will change.
  I will predict for the Senator the new environment in which we are 
going to live: The Democratic and Republican Parties that now receive 
great amounts of this soft money with a wink and a nod are simply going 
to direct it to favorite organizations. Instead of soft money 
contributions coming to the Republican National Committee, for example, 
people who are interested in a particular issue are going to give it to 
an advocacy group. You will never know who they are. The contribution 
will never be known, but the money will be redirected, and rather than 
leaders of the party deciding how to present the issue, those groups 
will do so.
  Second, I predict to you the Democratic and Republican Parties will 
establish their own independent wings, much like legally what Senator 
D'Amato did with the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. Down the 
hall, they put a new sign on the door, new incorporators, a new name, 
took money, and did issue advocacy.
  As long as you do that fully at arm's length, it is fine to do. But 
the same soft money you think you are banning in the parties will now 
go to these independent groups or affiliated groups. Unless this is 
done comprehensively, you are only going to have money flow in through 
different windows.
  What bothers me the most is that the people who are most honest about 
the process and most committed to stopping this abuse will suffer while 
those who are prepared to do the winks and nods, establishing the other 
organizations, working on some affiliated arm's-length basis will 
succeed. In any case, we are not going to stop this money; we are going 
to redirect it. The only way to stop it, in my judgment, is 
comprehensive reform.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I am happy to.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I think this is an extremely useful exchange that 
really goes to the core question about this legislation. I want to 
thank the Senator from New Jersey, even though we may come to different 
conclusions about specific tactics in what we do here. I thank the 
Senator for allowing us to talk about this because this is really what 
it is all about. Let me first reiterate my concern and ask a question 
about the totality of the ads the Senator suggested on his charts.
  Would the Senator concede that when you are dealing with ads that 
simply have to do with legislation, prior to 60 days, let's say, for 
example--the kind of tobacco ads we have seen; the ads we have seen 
about the Patients' Bill of Rights, the so-called Harry and Louise ads 
during the health care debate--there is no way under either Shays-
Meehan or under McCain-Feingold, or even under any other legislation, 
we could prohibit those ads? Is that something with which the Senator 
would agree?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I think it is difficult to know how the Supreme Court 
is going to deal with all of this. But

[[Page 25524]]

certainly, if you get outside the 60 days and you are attempting to 
bring people under FEC regulations for issue advocacy outside of the 60 
days, your case will clearly be weakened.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I am specifically talking here about ads that do not 
talk about elections at all, they are simply talking about legislation. 
The Senator will concede, without a constitutional amendment, we could 
not prohibit such ads?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I don't dispute that, although, indeed, if we were 
really doing comprehensive reform, which seems to be lost in the 
Senate, frankly, I would be going to that question on disclosability 
and tax deductibility and people remaining in tax-free status to do so. 
That would be comprehensive reform. But for the purpose of the 
argument, I will concede the point.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Fair enough. I think that is important because we have 
to distinguish here between the kinds of ads we are talking about.
  If it is the case, as the Senator from New Jersey suggests, that 
banning soft money will cause money to flow to phony issue ads, I think 
it is also rather difficult to dispute--in fact, you seem to concede--
if we prohibit that, that the money will just flow to generic issue ads 
as well. Isn't that your likely scenario?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. That is the scenario I predict.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me follow then to the really important question you 
are raising about the possibility of the attempts to evade our attempts 
to simply ban party soft money.
  I don't doubt for a minute that the Senator is right, that the 
attempt will be made to evade the intent of the law, and in some cases 
it could succeed. But is the Senator aware that the McCain-Feingold 
soft money ban, the bill we have introduced, will prohibit Federal 
candidates from raising money for these phony outside groups such as 
the organization that is connected with Representative DeLay? Are you 
aware that that provision is actually in this soft money ban?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I am aware of it. And I believe it will be proven to 
be entirely ineffective.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Are you further aware that the bill will prohibit the 
parties from transferring money to 501(c)(4) organizations such as 
Americans for Tax Reform, which you mentioned a short time ago?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. There would be no reason to do so. They are no longer 
raising soft money, so why would they need to transfer?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. So that route will be blocked.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. That route will be blocked. Instead, the environment 
we create would be this. Is the Senator from Wisconsin, with his 
familiarity with American politics and American fundraising, generally 
of the belief that people who are now contributing $100,000 or $250,000 
contributions, because they are advocating some perspective in American 
politics, when you pass this law, you are going to sit at home and say: 
You know, I guess I'm just not going to be heard; I'm going to remove 
myself from the process because that's the right thing to do?
  I think the Senator from Wisconsin must at least be suspicious that 
that money, that same check, is going to work itself into Americans for 
Tax Justice or one of these other 70 organizations that are engaged in 
this political advertising.
  It may not happen, as the Senator has appropriately written the bill, 
that a Member of Congress or a political party leader calls one of 
these contributors and says: Send your check to so-and-so. But 
certainly the Senator is aware it will not be very hard for political 
leaders to divert this money by a wink or a nod or some smile in the 
right direction, and we are going to end up, instead, having these 
surrogate organizations running these campaigns.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I further ask the question--I do appreciate these 
answers--I think when you look at the tough provisions we put in this 
bill, although nothing is ever perfectly complete if somebody is 
willing to violate the law and take their chances, but what we are 
talking about here is corporate executives, CEOs, who now give money 
directly to political parties, taking the chance of running afoul of 
these new criminal laws.
  I have this chart. It is a list of all the soft money double givers. 
These are corporations that have given over $150,000 to both sides. 
Under the Senator's logic, these very same corporations--Philip Morris, 
Joseph Seagram, RJR Nabisco, BankAmerica Corporation--each of these 
would continue making the same amount of contributions; they would take 
the chance of violating the law by doing this in coordination with or 
at the suggestion of the parties, and they would calmly turn over the 
same kind of cash to others, be it left-wing or right-wing independent 
groups?
  I have to say--and I will finish my question--I am skeptical that if 
they cannot hand the check directly to the political party leaders, 
they will take those chances.
  I share your suspicions about some group trying to funnel this money. 
There is no question that some of that will happen. But wouldn't you 
concede there has to be some serious risk, in our soft money ban, for 
these corporations to pull this kind of a stunt?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, I do not doubt there are some 
people who will not participate in doing so. But in what is a rising 
tide of soft money contributions in the country, they will be 
overwhelmed by people who will because it is not illegal. It will not 
be illegal. It will be fundamentally clear which of these affiliated 
organizations each political party supports and favors.
  It certainly is not going to be lost upon many donors that the 
Democratic Party looks favorably upon the Sierra Club or NARAL. I doubt 
that any major Republican contributor is not going to understand that 
Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Justice, or term limits, or the 
antiabortion groups, or term limits are favored by the RNC.
  No one is going to have to send out a letter or make a speech. 
Everybody is going to know where everybody stands. The same money just 
gets redirected, but not equally as bad as the party contributions--
worse, no accountability; you will never know who they are. And the 
ads, I believe, become less and less responsible.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will----
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Nor, by the way, if I may continue, is this a 
theoretical problem. I do not cast aspersions, but entirely legally in 
the 1996 cycle, when the restrictions were out on the coordination of 
issue advertising, Senator D'Amato set up a separate division and did 
issue advertising. It is entirely appropriate, entirely appropriate.
  This August, Grover Norquist had $4.5 million worth of advertising 
for his Americans for Tax Justice. In some of those advertisements, 
they used the same film footage as Republican candidates were using--on 
the same issues. That technically is not advisable, but it is 
happening. We have some responsibility here in the Senate to deal with 
the reality of how this process is going to evolve.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. One more question, because the Senator from New Jersey 
has been very generous in responding.
  The proposition you are advancing appears to be--given this chart, 
Philip Morris did give almost $500,000 to the Democrats, although they 
gave $2.5 million to the Republicans--apparently the Senator believes, 
one way or another, Philip Morris is going to see to it that that kind 
of money--$500,000-- sees its way to the Sierra Club or NARAL or some 
kind----
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Probably not the groups the Senator has cited, but I 
do believe they end up in an organization.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. But it will go to that kind of a group.
  The point I want to reiterate--and I put it in the form of a 
question--is that the suggestion that a party soft money ban that 
includes some new tough provisions to protect against evasions of the 
law would not make a difference, I think, is problematic. We are 
talking about making these subterfuges, which are currently legal--
maybe at the most they are stretching the law--illegal. What Mr. DeLay 
is doing, from the other body, apparently is right on the

[[Page 25525]]

line, some would say. Maybe it is legal; maybe it isn't. But we can't 
say for sure it is illegal. We are making sure in our bill that it is a 
crime to do this sort of thing.
  Don't you think it would make a significant difference and raise the 
bar on the risk for these companies and those individuals to play this 
game? Isn't it worth taking the chance by banning soft money and having 
these tough provisions? Isn't it worth giving it a try?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. My point to the Senator from Wisconsin is, he is not 
banning soft money. He is continuing the legitimization of a process 
where money from unknown contributors is distorting the American 
political process and undermining confidence.
  I have great respect for what the Senator from Wisconsin has done, 
but it is a premature and unfortunate retreat. If the Senator believes 
we should be banning soft money, we should be banning soft money for 
people in the entire process, not the Democratic and Republican parties 
alone.
  Could the Senator tell me, under your provisions, when Congressman 
DeLay simply takes his name off of this and he puts on his cousin, B.B. 
DeLay, or his former chief of staff, how does your law protect his $25 
million expenditures when he no longer has a name on it, but it is very 
clear to anyone in the country the organization that he favors?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I am very glad the Senator asked me that question. 
Again, you come to the heart of the matter. Let us look at the language 
of the bill we have put forward.
  It does not talk about only what the gentleman from Texas--as we 
should perhaps refer to him on the floor--would do directly. The 
language is clear. It says: A candidate, an individual holding Federal 
office, agent of a candidate or individual holding Federal office, or 
an entity directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained, 
controlled by, or acting on behalf of one or more candidates--cannot 
raise this money.
  We deal with the indirect problem. It is not possible to have B.B. 
DeLay become the shell person to do this without running the risk of 
violating the law.
  Since you asked me a question this time, I will answer in the form of 
a question back to you. How can you say to me that we only deal with 
some of the soft money when the whole exchange we just had made you 
concede--you clearly conceded--that you can't deal with all the soft 
money, that there is no way you could ever deal with----
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, I can deal with it. I remind the 
Senator, I am yielding the time. It can be dealt with. I am telling you 
about our legislation. In the original McCain-Feingold bill now passed 
by the House of Representatives, we are dealing with soft money in this 
60-day period.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. You are not dealing----
  Mr. TORRICELLI. The most sensitive period for American elections are 
those ads that are actually directly influencing elections.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Is the Senator not aware that even during the 60-day 
period, the Shays-Meehan bill, which, of course, was the McCain-
Feingold bill, does not cover pure issue ads? It only covers ads that 
show the likeness of a candidate or mention the name of a candidate. It 
does not cover the Harry-and-Louise kind of ads.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. The Senator knows I am aware. But to go back to 
Senator McCain's point, his argument of making the perfect the enemy of 
the good, no; I can't control every abuse in American politics by the 
Shays-Meehan bill. I can't control advertising throughout the entire 2 
years. I can't control advertising where someone wants to buy a soft 
money ad to show the virtues of his grandmother. I can't do that. That 
may not be important. But what we did accomplish in the original 
McCain-Feingold bill is, in that 60-day period when elections are most 
influenced, we were making sure the American people knew who was doing 
the advertising and where the money was coming from if they were 
attempting to influence their votes. That was a high standard, not an 
impossible standard, and a worthwhile goal. It never should have been 
abandoned. That is what leads us to the floor today.
  I want to ask one final question, and then I will yield to Senator 
Bennett.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I want to ask the Senator from Wisconsin one more 
question. A group of unaffiliated citizens decides they are going to 
rent a building next to DNC headquarters. In that building, they are 
going to call themselves Democrats for a Better America. Democrats for 
a Better America is going to file as a charitable organization along 
with the Red Cross and the Boy Scouts. No one in the current DNC 
leadership is going to be on their board of directors, but they are 
right next door. They are going to have the same seal as the DNC except 
they are going to take one toe off the eagle and they are going to 
change the color tone a little bit, but they are going to be right next 
door. They are going to take $200,000 contributions, million-dollar 
contributions. And unlike the Democratic Party, they are not going to 
disclose them. No one is going to know where the money is going to come 
from.
  Can the Senator tell me how legally we are going to restrict American 
citizens from doing this constitutionally under your provision, unless 
we had Shays-Meehan, which applied these soft money bans to everybody's 
efforts?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I think, in the scenario you described, there would be 
a heck of a case to suggest there is indirect coordination. What you 
have just described is an obvious scenario.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Different address, different name, different purpose.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I would be delighted to have some sort of an 
investigation of whether or not that is a different organization and 
has no connection with the party. But if the Senator has some concerns 
about how we drafted this, if he thinks we need to take the language 
and tighten it up--I think it is pretty tight--but we would be 
delighted to try to make this tougher. You are right. We shouldn't let 
anybody do this by ruse. What you described is a ruse.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, what I am describing to you is 
what I believe is going to be the future of American politics. We do 
have tougher language; it is called Shays-Meehan. That is why Senator 
Daschle and I have offered it. It is a complete, comprehensive ban on 
soft money. It is genuine reform. There is no end to my admiration of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin who wrote it.
  I yield to Senator Bennett.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I want to make one comment, if I could, in response to 
that. Excuse me, to the Senator from Utah.
  Let me again thank you and, of course, reiterate, I helped write 
those provisions in Shays-Meehan. I would love to see them passed. It 
would do more than the bill we are now proposing. But the notion that 
it isn't worth it, if that is all we can do--and that is something we 
disagree on and we will debate in a few minutes, I hope--the notion 
that it isn't worth it to ban these giant direct contributions to the 
parties, as well as the various attempted ways to try to get around the 
ban, which we seek to do, to not do that, to suggest that not doing 
that alone isn't worth it and it is worse than the status quo, to me, 
is absurd.
  Let me reiterate, I do support the language of Shays-Meehan. But the 
question that is crucial is whether or not it is at all possible to get 
60 votes for that. I suggest stopping this is well worth doing.
  I thank the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from New Jersey.
  Is he aware of a gentleman named Arnold Hyatt?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I do not know Mr. Hyatt. Should I?
  Mr. BENNETT. If I may, then, could I enlighten the Senator from New 
Jersey on the case of Arnold Hyatt. This comes from an article that 
appeared in Fortune magazine on September 7, 1998, in an article 
entitled ``The Money Chase,'' the subtitle of which says: It's as venal 
as this: The Presidential candidates who raise the most money get the 
nomination. Fortune's guide to the masters of the political universe.

[[Page 25526]]

  Now, in that article, it describes Arnold Hyatt, 71, who, in 1996, 
was the second largest individual contributor to the Democratic Party. 
His $500,000 gift was second only to the $600,000 given by Loral's 
Bernard Schwartz.
  The article goes on to say: Hyatt wrote his $500,000 check a month 
before the November 1996 election, specifically to help unseat 
vulnerable House Republicans and return the House to Democratic 
control.
  I am sure the Senator from New Jersey would accept that as a laudable 
goal. The Senator from Utah might argue with that, but that was his 
purpose. In the article it says he has decided not to give any more 
soft money. Quoting the article, why he decided to stop contributing to 
politicians so soon after giving so much, he admits that it was because 
his Democrats didn't win.
  Then, the article goes on:

       He still aspires to topple his enemies by ending the 
     Republican majority in Congress. Hyatt then hasn't gotten 
     religion, he's changed tactics. Rather than relying on the 
     Democrats to press his agenda, he is now giving heavily to 
     organizations like the Washington-based Public Campaign, 
     which lobbied for publicly financed elections.

  I submit to the Senator from New Jersey that what he says will go on 
and, in fact, is already going on, as demonstrated in the case of Mr. 
Hyatt who gave one-half million dollars--enough to put him on the chart 
of the Senator from Wisconsin all by himself, without any company 
behind him, his own money, one-half million dollars. Clearly, it had to 
be soft money because if it were hard money, it would be illegal and 
over the $25,000 limit. He decided to shift that giving from a party--
because he wasn't getting the results he was hoping for--to a special 
interest group.
  That is why I asked if the Senator was aware of him because, in my 
view, he represents a class A example of exactly what the Senator from 
New Jersey is saying will happen. It has already started to happen and 
will continue to happen if we pass the underlying legislation.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator. It is illustrative that we can 
be on different sides politically in the campaign finance debate and 
see emerging the same future. The Senator has described the future of 
American politics, where large donors choose their favorite 
organization, or create one of their own. Rather than be part of a 
political campaign, they create their own issue advocacy group, fund it 
with their own money, and run their own advertising. You, as a 
candidate, will sit in the leisure of your home, sending out postcards 
or mail with your thousand dollars in federally restricted funds, while 
on your side the Chamber of Commerce, or on my side the AFL-CIO, fights 
a war in the airwaves over our heads. You won't control content; you 
won't define yourself; you won't answer to your opponents. You will be 
a spectator in your own campaign.
  We may have different prescriptions for the problem--mine is Shays-
Meehan--to put everybody on the same plain. You may have a different 
formula, but we see the same future.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from New Jersey yield?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I have been listening carefully to the observations of 
my friend from New Jersey. Along the same lines, would the Senator 
agree with the Senator from Kentucky that the only entities in American 
politics completely devoted and willing to support challengers are the 
political parties?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. In my experience, that is largely true.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would the Senator from New Jersey agree that, as a 
practical matter, the result of the most recent version of McCain-
Feingold is to take away 35 percent of the budget of the Democratic 
Senatorial Committee, 35 percent of the budget of the Republican 
Senatorial Committee, and roughly 40 percent of the budgets of the RNC 
and the DNC; is that not correct?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. That is probably a fair estimate.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So I say to my friend from New Jersey, another maybe 
unintended consequence of the proposal that is targeted right at the 
heart of America's two great political parties is that it will make it 
even more difficult for challengers to be competitive in elections 
across America.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I think the Senator from Kentucky makes a good point, 
that neither will be in a position to fund challengers. I don't know 
about the spending priorities of the Republican organization, but I can 
tell you soft money, largely raised by the DNC and the DSCC, also goes 
for things such as voter registration, for get-out-the-vote efforts, 
which are not necessarily things for which to use Federal moneys. That 
soft money, in our case, almost exclusively goes for those outreach 
programs. Indeed, our States are all different, but in my State, soft 
money goes almost entirely to minority communities for get-out-the-
votes and registration.
  Having said that, the Senator and I agree on his analysis. 
Nevertheless, where we part is I would be prepared to have the DSCC and 
the DNC forego all soft money and operate only on hard money. But my 
concern is, I don't want to do so while the National Rifle Association 
or the Christian Coalition or the right-to-life organizations are 
running soft money campaigns against our candidates or challengers.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend, we don't agree on the underlying 
issue. But selective disarmament of the two great political parties, 
some would argue, is not a step forward in having more and more 
competitive elections, which presumably would be a good thing for the 
American political system. As the Senator knows, I don't want to disarm 
anybody. I don't think we have a problem in America because we have too 
few voices speaking on issues.
  My view is, a government that spends $1.8 trillion a year is a 
government that can threaten an awful lot of people. It is not at all 
surprising these citizens, groups, and parties want to have an impact 
on a government that has the ability to take away everything they have. 
So I am not surprised, nor am I offended, by all of these voices having 
the opportunity to speak out.
  But I thank the Senator from New Jersey for making the very important 
point that it is a sort of selective quieting of voices, a singling out 
of six committees. I think there are something like 3,000 committees 
registered with the Federal Election Commission. If this particular 
version of McCain-Feingold were passed, I say to my friend from New 
Jersey, 6 committees out of 3,000 would be unable to engage in issue 
advocacy, raising an important fifth amendment problem under the equal 
protection clause. Is it possible for the Government to single out 6 
committees out of 3,000 and say only those committees cannot engage in 
issue advocacy?
  So this thing has an important fifth amendment problem. We have 
talked a lot about the first amendment in this debate. This proposal 
has a serious fifth amendment problem.
  I thank my friend from New Jersey for his observations about what is 
going to happen, practically, if you simply target the parties.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank my friend.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the question before the Senate is, Are we 
going to make progress in reforming our campaign finance system or not?
  That is the simple question before us. In the 105th Congress, the 
Senate took up comprehensive campaign finance reform measures three 
times--in September of 1997, in March of 1998, and in September of 
1998. Despite my support and the support of a majority of the Senate, 
these measures could not break the legislative logjam and move forward. 
So it was obvious it was time for a new approach, a new test that would 
allow the Senate to consider a more narrow piece of legislation and 
then work its will on the various components of the original McCain-
Feingold bill.
  Now, I am a supporter of the more comprehensive approach. I am proud 
to have been an early cosponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill. The Shays-
Meehan bill is, too, an excellent piece of

[[Page 25527]]

legislation. It contains many provisions I wholeheartedly support. But 
the point is--and the Senator from New Jersey is well aware of it--the 
comprehensive approach will not garner the votes necessary to move 
through this Senate. So the question is, Do we want to make progress or 
don't we?
  It is difficult to think of a better example of the old adage of 
``the perfect being the enemy of the good'' than the debate we are 
having this morning. So I rise in strong support of the underlying 
measure before us, the revised McCain-Feingold bill.
  The underlying bill closes the most glaring loophole in our campaign 
finance laws by banning the unlimited, unregulated contributions known 
as soft money. The legislation also takes an important step of 
codifying the Supreme Court's decision in the Beck case. This will 
preserve the rights of nonunion members who must pay fees to a union to 
have their money excluded from the union's political activity fund.
  In 1974, in the aftermath of Watergate, Congress passed comprehensive 
campaign finance reform measures that placed dollar limits on political 
contributions.
  In its Buckley v. Valeo ruling, the Supreme Court upheld those 
contributions limits reasoning they were a legitimate means to guard 
against the reality or appearance of improper political influence.
  Contribution limits remain on the books, but in reality, they have 
become a dead letter. The resourceful have found that the easiest way 
to circumvent the spirit of Federal election law is to provide huge 
sums to the political parties through soft money donations. For years, 
soft money contributions to the major political parties were used for 
party overhead and organizational expenses. But over time, the use of 
soft money has increased dramatically to include a wider range of 
activities which influence elections.
  Mr. President, in 1907, corporations were banned from directly 
contributing to Federal elections from their treasury funds. In 1947, 
Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act, which banned labor unions from 
contributing treasury funds to candidates. Plain and simple, the soft 
money corporations and labor unions funnel through the parties clearly 
circumvents those laws.
  We in this body decry legal loopholes, but we have reserved a gaping 
one for ourselves. Indeed, the soft money loophole is more like a black 
hole, and that sucking sound you hear during election years is the 
whoosh of six-figure soft money donations gushing into party coffers.
  The soft money loophole in our Federal election laws has been 
exploited to the point where the legislative framework put in place in 
the 1970's has become a mere shell. In 1994, approximately $100 million 
was raised through soft money by the major parties. Four years later, 
that amount more than doubled--fully $224 million was raised in soft 
money.
  The problem with soft money was painfully evident during the 1997 
hearings at the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, in which the 
Committee heard from one individual who gave $325,000 to the Democratic 
National Committee in order to secure a picture with the President of 
the United States. We also heard from another individual, the infamous 
and clearly unrepentant Roger Tamraz who testified that next time he is 
willing to spend $600,000, rather than $300,000, to purchase access to 
the White House. In a July, 1997 interview with the Los Angeles Times, 
Johnny Chung, who gave $366,000 derived from illegal foreign sources to 
the Democratic National Committee and other Democrat organizations, 
cynically revealed the depth of the current problem; he said, ``I see 
the White House is like a subway--you have to put in the coins to open 
up the gates.''
  This is what this debate is about.
  How long can public faith in a political system survive when the 
public perception exists that wealthy groups are given a stage, podium 
and a microphone to broadcast their concerns, while the voice of the 
vast majority remains muted?
  I hope Members will indulge me if I take a moment to explain the 
importance of this issue to the people of Maine.
  Time and time again, I hear it said on the Senate floor and elsewhere 
that the American people do not care about this issue. I can't speak 
for the citizens of other States, but I know the people of Maine care 
deeply about this issue--about reforming our campaign finance system.
  My home State has a deep commitment to preserving the integrity of 
the electoral system and ensuring that all Mainers have an equal 
political voice--and Mainers have backed their commitment to an open 
political process in both word and deed. In many regions of Maine, 
political life is dominated by town meetings and public forums in which 
all citizens are invited to share their concerns, and hash out critical 
political matters. This is unvarnished direct democracy where all 
citizens are a part of the process. People with more money do not get 
to speak longer or louder than people with less money. Perhaps it is 
our tradition of town meetings that explains why so many Maine citizens 
feel so strongly about reforming our Federal campaign laws, about 
reforming the current system. And that strong feeling is one I share.
  The bill before us today is not a broad sweeping reform such as the 
one we considered last year and the year before. Rather, it is a modest 
attempt to achieve some progress by tackling the biggest abuse in the 
system. This primary purpose of today's bill is to stem the growing 
reliance on huge soft money contributions. This is not a radical 
approach; rather, our proposal to eliminate political party soft money, 
endorsed by former Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George 
Bush, is a measured step toward meaningful reform.
  Mr. President, when I ran for a seat in this body, I advocated major 
changes to our campaign finance law, but I recognize that goal must 
wait for another time.
  But surely we can take this initial critical first step. Although I 
remain personally committed to more comprehensive changes in the 
current law, I believe the revised McCain-Feingold bill before us today 
will serve as a building block on which we can build a much better 
election financing system.
  I look forward to the debate in the days ahead. My colleagues have 
several proposals to improve this bill. But at the conclusion of this 
debate, my guiding principle in casting my votes on the amendments 
before us, including the proposal by the Democratic leader, will be 
answering the question of whether we are moving forward and whether we 
are successfully ending the abuse of unregulated soft money in our 
campaign finance system.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this modest, 
commonsense first step to restore integrity and public confidence in 
our campaign system.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine. She has 
been a stalwart and steadfast advocate, ally, and friend in this very 
difficult effort. I know that not only the people of Maine but the 
people of Arizona are very appreciative of everything she has done in 
this effort. She lends credibility and grace to the debate. I thank her 
very much for everything she has done.
  I want to talk for a few minutes about an organization called the 
Committee for Economic Development. It is an independent research and 
policy organization of some 250 business leaders and educators. It is 
nonprofit, nonpartisan, and nonpolitical.
  The interesting thing about the Committee for Economic Development is 
that they are composed preliminarily of business leaders in America, 
mainly from major corporations, some smaller, and many educators. It 
has an incredibly illustrious membership.
  This organization took a very bold step not too long ago; that is, a 
group of chief executive officers of major corporations decided they 
would stand up and reject soft money contributions to American 
political campaigns, whether

[[Page 25528]]

they be Republican or Democrat. I am sure that was not an easy decision 
on their part. I am sure there have been significant pressures brought 
to bear against many of them as individuals and as corporations.
  They issued a very interesting statement by the Research and Policy 
Committee, the Committee for Economic Development. It is entitled, 
``Investing in the People's Business: A Business Proposal for Campaign 
Finance Reform.'' Chapter IV is entitled: ``Recommendations for 
Reform.'' It says,

       Our recommendations are also informed by our belief in 
     certain basic principles that should govern a system of 
     campaign finance regulation. The five principles listed below 
     reflect the objectives we regard as most important, which 
     should form the basis for evaluating regulatory reform 
     proposals.
       (1) Regulation should protect free speech and promote an 
     informed citizenry.
       The First Amendment and the principles it embodies 
     guarantee freedom of speech and expression and thus protect 
     the cornerstone of our political system: full and robust 
     political debate. The courts have acknowledged the link 
     between political finance and the First Amendment in ruling 
     that the financing of political expression is a protected 
     form of political speech under the First Amendment. Campaign 
     finance laws must recognize these constitutional 
     considerations and uphold the principles of free speech. It 
     is especially important to protect and promote the political 
     speech that takes place in election campaigns, the purpose of 
     which is to provide American citizens with the knowledge 
     needed to make informed decisions on Election Day.
       (2) Regulation should protect the political system from 
     corruption or the appearance of corruption.
       The regulations governing campaign finance should promote 
     public confidence in the political process and ensure that 
     the integrity of the electoral system is maintained. It is 
     therefore essential that the system guard against corruption 
     or the appearance of corruption in the financing of political 
     campaigns. A system of political finance that fulfills this 
     objective helps to ensure that elected officials are 
     responsive to broad public interests and the desires of their 
     constituencies.
       (3) Regulation should ensure public accountability.
       A goal of the campaign finance system should be full 
     transparency of the funding of campaigns for public office, 
     supported by the public's right to know. Elections allow 
     citizen to hold candidates and elected officials accountable 
     for their views and actions. If the major participants in 
     political campaigns are to be held accountable, the public 
     must have full and timely information about their campaigns.

  I might add, Mr. President, one of the first amendments I proposed 
yesterday, which was adopted, concerned full and complete disclosure 
and using the Internet as part of that capability to do so.

       Any system of campaign finance must therefore ensure full 
     public disclosure of the sources of campaign funding, the 
     activities undertaken with it, and the amounts raised and 
     spent. Disclosure not only provides the electorate with the 
     information it needs but also helps curtail excesses and 
     promote full public scrutiny of financial transactions.
       (4) Regulation should encourage public participation in the 
     political system.
       The strength of a democracy depends upon the political 
     participation of its citizens. Citizens should be encouraged 
     not only to vote but to participate in the process in other 
     ways. Campaign finance rules should not discourage citizens 
     from seeking elective office, associating with others, 
     volunteering their skills and time, or participating in the 
     financing of campaigns. Such participation enhances the 
     legitimacy of the representative process and thereby 
     strengthens popular support for the political system.
       (5) Regulation should promote electoral competition.
       The essence of democracy lies in competitive elections that 
     offer voters a choice of candidates. Competition stimulates 
     public interest in election campaigns, induces greater 
     numbers of citizens to learn about the candidates, gives more 
     meaning to elections, and encourages people to vote. It is an 
     essential element in promoting the vitality and quality of 
     political life. The regulation of campaign funding should 
     therefore promote competitive elections by ensuring that 
     candidates have an opportunity to obtain the resources needed 
     to share their views with voters.

  Mr. President, one reason I quote that is I think it is a very 
important statement as to what our goals should be in political 
campaigns. It lays out the basis for the first recommendation of the 
Committee for Economic Development. Their first recommendation is 
eliminate soft money.

       We believe that, as a general principle, funds used to 
     promote political candidacies should be subject to the 
     requirements and restrictions of federal law on campaign 
     finance. Soft money is the most egregious example of campaign 
     financing that violates this principle. No reform is more 
     urgently needed than the elimination of soft money.
       Some business leaders have already taken action to help 
     remedy this problem by refusing to participate in the soft 
     money system. Most businesses in America do not give 
     unregulated soft money funds to the political parties. 
     Others, including such industry leaders as General Motors, 
     AlliedSignal, and Monsanto, have recently declared that they 
     will no longer make such contributions. They have been joined 
     by dozens of corporate executives, who recognize the dangers 
     to our system of government created by this type of 
     fundraising.\49\ CED supports these voluntary efforts to 
     reduce soft money and lauds the leadership shown by these 
     members of the business community. We urge other business 
     leaders, labor unions, and individual citizens to follow this 
     lead and voluntarily work to reduce the supply of soft money 
     funds.
       There are ample opportunities for members of the business 
     community to express their support for candidates or party 
     organizations, either as individuals or through PACs. We 
     encourage participation in the process in these ways. But 
     there is no need for members of the business community, labor 
     unions, or others to supplement these opportunities with soft 
     money contributions. Participation in the soft money 
     practices of the national party committees fuels the demand 
     for soft dollars and spurs the arms race mentality that now 
     characterizes party fundraising at the national level.
       Voluntary efforts alone, however, will not solve the soft 
     money problem. Potential donors will still face pressure from 
     elected officials and national party leaders to make soft 
     money contributions. We therefore believe that a legislative 
     remedy is needed to end soft money. Specifically, we 
     recommend that Congress prohibit national party committees, 
     their officers or staff, and any organizations or entities 
     established or controlled by national party committees or 
     their personnel, from soliciting, receiving, or directing any 
     contributions, donations, or transfers of funds that are not 
     subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and public 
     disclosure requirements of federal law. These committees and 
     individuals should also be prohibited from spending any funds 
     that are not subject to such restrictions and requirements. 
     Similar prohibitions should be applied to federal 
     officeholders, candidates, and their agents or staffs. In 
     addition, federal officeholders or candidates should be 
     prohibited from raising or spending soft money through 
     personal PACs or so-called ``leadership PACs.'' (An 
     exemption, however, would be made for federal officeholders 
     running for state or local office who are raising monies 
     allowable under the relevant state law--e.g., a U.S. senator 
     running as a candidate in a gubernatorial election.)
       In short, national party committees, including the national 
     congressional campaign committees, and federal politicians 
     would not be allowed to raise and spend monies from 
     unrestricted sources in unlimited amounts. We believe that 
     this reform will greatly reduce the unregulated party money 
     that is now flowing through the system.
       This reform also would significantly simplify the rules 
     governing party finance. National party committees would be 
     allowed to raise only hard money. National party committees 
     would no longer be able to raise or use corporate or labor 
     union treasury funds or unlimited gifts from individuals and 
     PACs. Their revenues would have to come from limited 
     voluntary contributions from individuals, PACs, or other 
     federally registered political committees, such as candidate 
     campaign committees. There would no longer be a need for 
     separate types of bank accounts or complex allocation rules 
     for the financing of different types of party activity.
       Taking national party committees, federal officeholders and 
     candidates, and their agents and staffs out of the business 
     of raising and spending soft money will change the 
     relationship between donors and federal politicians. It will 
     reduce both the incentive for donors to give in exchange for 
     access and the pressure to give that is created by 
     solicitations from national party leaders or elected 
     officeholders. It will also prevent federal candidates from 
     raising unlimited funds that can be used by party committees 
     to benefit indirectly their own bids for office. We believe 
     that this reform will substantially alter the incentive 
     structure that encourages soft money contributions. As a 
     result, we expect the vast majority of this pool of funds, 
     especially much of the money donated by the business 
     community, to dry up. Most of this money came into the system 
     only during the last two presidential cycles, largely in 
     response to the aggressive fundraising practices of the 
     national party committees. These donors are unlikely to 
     aggressively seek out other means of pouring money into the 
     system.
       We recognize, however, that this recommendation could be 
     circumvented. Federal officeholders and candidates could 
     still engage in soft money fundraising by shifting their 
     activities to the state level. Federal officials could help 
     their respective state parties raise funds that are not 
     subject to federal limits, and the state parties could in

[[Page 25529]]

     turn use these monies to finance activities, such as voter 
     registration and turnout drives, that influence federal 
     elections in their state. Such activities would diminish the 
     benefits of reforms adopted at the national level.
       We have carefully considered the proposal to close this 
     ``loophole'' by extending federal regulation to any state 
     party activities that might influence the outcome of a 
     federal election and are financed by contributions not 
     permitted by federal law. But we are very troubled by the 
     prospect of using federal rules to govern state party 
     political finance, especially when these committees are 
     acting in conformance with the laws adopted by the people of 
     their states. Such an approach raises troublesome issues 
     regarding the principle of federalism and the scope of 
     Congress's authority to legislate in this area. Accordingly, 
     we conclude that this issue is most appropriately handled by 
     the states. We therefore urge state legislatures to pass any 
     legislation necessary to ensure that state party committees 
     cannot finance their activities from unrestricted or 
     undisclosed sources of funding.
       We recognize that a ban on soft money will have a 
     significant effect on the resources available to national 
     party committees and may diminish their role in the electoral 
     process. Soft money represents a substantial share of party 
     revenues and is used to finance many of the costs directly 
     related to the parties' activities, ranging from staff 
     salaries and overhead expenses to voter registration and 
     mobilization efforts. The loss of soft money is likely to 
     reduce such party activities and would require that parties 
     pay more of their administrative and political services costs 
     from funds they raise under federal limits. This, in turn, 
     may lead to a reduction in the amounts of money available for 
     candidate support or voter turnout efforts. Since parties are 
     the only source of private funding (other than personal 
     contributions or loans) that favors challengers, a 
     significant reduction in party resources is likely to 
     decrease the resources available to challengers. It is also 
     likely to reduce the amounts available for voter 
     identification and turnout programs. We believe that these 
     party activities play a valuable role in enhancing the 
     competitiveness of elections and encouraging citizen 
     participation.
       To partially compensate for this loss, we recommend a 
     change in the rules limiting individual contributions to 
     federal candidates and political committees. Under current 
     law, individuals are limited to an annual total of $25,000 
     for all contributions made to federal candidates, PACs, and 
     party committees. We propose that Congress establish two 
     separate aggregate limits for individuals. The first would 
     limit the total amount contributed by an individual to 
     federal candidates and PACs to $25,000 annually. The second, 
     separate ceiling would limit the total amount contributed by 
     an individual to national party committees to $25,000 
     annually. This change will allow parties to raise more 
     regulated money from individuals than is permissible under 
     current federal law.

  Mr. President, how did we get to where we are in this soft money? I 
think probably one of the best depictions of it is also in chapter 3 of 
the CED's report. I quote:

       Efforts to regulate the flow of campaign money often 
     produce unintended and unforeseen consequences. Candidates 
     and their staffs, as well as party committees and interest 
     groups, have responded to regulation with imaginative 
     innovations, producing new financial practices unanticipated 
     by lawmakers. The law has also been interpreted by the courts 
     and administrative agencies in unexpected ways, producing new 
     directives that also have encouraged new financial 
     strategies. Both these developments have dramatically 
     increased the flow of money in federal elections and 
     significantly undermined the effectiveness of our federal 
     campaign finance laws.
       Soft money was not recognized as a form of party finance 
     under the original provisions of FECA. In fact, FECA 
     contained only one narrow exception to the party contribution 
     limits. Parties could receive contributions in unlimited 
     amounts from unlimited sources for ``building funds'' 
     established to pay for new buildings or headquarters 
     structures. Outside of this ``bricks and mortar'' provision, 
     all monies received by parties were subject to federal 
     limits.
       By 1980, the year of the second presidential election 
     conducted under FECA, these tough prohibitions on party 
     receipts and expenditures had begun to erode, and the door 
     had been opened to unregulated party financial activity. This 
     occurred as a result of problems experienced in the 1976 
     election and administrative decisions of the Federal Election 
     Commission (FEC) that altered the kinds of money parties 
     could raise.
       In the 1976 election, party leaders quickly recognized that 
     the activities they traditionally financed in conjunction 
     with national elections were significantly hindered by the 
     new system of public financing and spending limits for 
     presidential campaigns. Under the new law, expenditures by a 
     party to help the presidential ticket might be considered in-
     kind contributions to the candidate or election-related 
     expenditures that were no longer allowed. Parties therefore 
     looked to the presidential campaigns to fund much of the 
     paraphernalia used in traditional volunteer activities, such 
     as signs, bumper stickers, and buttons, as well as voter 
     registration and turnout activities. But the presidential 
     campaigns, now faced with limited funds and wanting to 
     maximize the resources available for television advertising, 
     did not allocate substantial amounts to these other 
     activities that parties considered important. As a result, 
     party leaders appealed to Congress after the election to 
     change the law so that they could finance volunteer and 
     party-building activities without risking a violation of the 
     law.
       Congress responded to these concerns and in 1979 amended 
     FECA to exempt very specific, narrowly defined party 
     activities from the definitions of ``expenditure'' and 
     ``contribution'' contained in the Act. Thus, parties were 
     allowed to spend unlimited amounts on grassroots, party-
     building activities and generic party activities such as 
     voter registration and turnout drives. They were also 
     permitted to spend unlimited amounts on such traditional 
     campaign materials as bumper stickers, buttons, and slate 
     cards. But the Congress did not change the rules on party 
     fundraising: the monies spent on these activities had to come 
     from ``hard money'' donations subject to federal contribution 
     limits. Congress also specified that none of these unlimited 
     expenditures could pay for mass public communications, such 
     as direct mail or television advertising.
       At the same time that Congress was making these changes in 
     the law, party officials were asking the FEC to decide 
     another set of issues related to general party activities. 
     The parties argued that their organizations were involved not 
     only in federal but also in non-federal election activity, 
     such as supporting candidates in state-level races and 
     building party support at the state and local level. 
     Furthermore, many generic party activities, such as voter 
     registration and turnout drives, are conducted to help both 
     federal and non-federal candidates. The parties therefore 
     contended that the finance rules should recognize the non-
     federal role of party organizations and allow parties to 
     partially finance their political activity with monies 
     subject only to state laws.
       The FEC responded to these questions with a series of 
     ruling that recognized the non-federal role of state and 
     national party organizations. These rulings allowed parties 
     to finance a share of their activities with money raised 
     under state law if they maintained separate accounts for 
     federal and non-federal funds. Subsequent rules established 
     complex allocation formulas that determined the shares of 
     particular expenditures that had to be allocated to federal 
     and non-federal accounts.
       Thus was born the distinction between ``hard'' and ``soft'' 
     money. Hard (federal) money is subject to federal 
     contribution limits and is the only type of funding that can 
     be used to support federal candidates directly. All 
     contributions to federal candidates, coordinated 
     expenditures, or independent expenditures made in federal 
     contests must use hard money. Soft (non-federal) money is 
     exempt from federal limits and can be used to finance general 
     party activities, including such activities as voter 
     registration drives, even though these activities may 
     indirectly influence federal elections, for example, by 
     encouraging more party members to vote.
       The FEC's decisions essentially freed parties to engage in 
     unlimited fundraising as long as they abided by the technical 
     requirements of the law. They could now raise (and spend) 
     monies obtained from sources that were banned from 
     participating in federal elections or from individuals and 
     PACs that had already donated the legal maximum. These 
     changes in the rules thus gave parties a strong incentive to 
     raise soft money.


                        the growth of soft money

       Parties quickly adapted to the new regulatory environment. 
     At first, soft money was primarily raised in presidential 
     election years for use on voter registration and turnout 
     operations. But the parties soon expanded the role of soft 
     money by expanding the range of activities that could be paid 
     for with these funds. They also began to raise soft money 
     more aggressively, soliciting ever larger sums.
       Since 1980, soft money has grown rapidly. In 1980, the 
     Republican and Democratic national party committees spent a 
     total of about $19 million in soft money, with the 
     Republicans disbursing $15 million and the Democrats $4 
     million. Much the same pattern existed in 1984. By 1988, 
     however, the amount of soft money had more than doubled to 
     $45 million, shared about equally between the two major 
     parties. By 1992, soft money had almost doubled again to $80 
     million, with the Republicans spending $47 million to the 
     Democrats' $33 million.
       Yet the soft money raised in those elections pales in 
     comparison to that raised in 1996 and 1998. In the 
     Presidential election cycle of 1996 the two major parties 
     raised $262 million in soft money, more than three times the 
     amount garnered only four years earlier. (See Figure 5.) The 
     Republican committees solicited more than $138 million and 
     the Democratic committees $124 million. In contrast, hard 
     money increased much more

[[Page 25530]]

     slowly. Democratic hard money increased by 59 percent over 
     1992, and Republican funds by 71 percent.
       Similarly, soft money fundraising in 1998 was up 
     dramatically over the previous off-year election cycle of 
     1994. As of 20 days after the election, the national party 
     committees had raised $201 million in soft money, close to 
     twice the $107 million they had raised in the entire 1994 
     election cycle. The Republicans had raised $111.3 million, 
     compared with $52.5 million in 1994, an increase of 112 
     percent; the Democrats had raised $89.4 million, 82 percent 
     more than the $49.1 million four years earlier.
       The share of total party funds represented by soft money 
     has also increased substantially. In 1992, for example, soft 
     money constituted 26 percent of the receipts of all three 
     Democratic national party committees. By 1998 the soft-money 
     share had risen to 37 percent. For the three Republican 
     national party committees, the proportion rose from 20 
     percent to 29 percent during the same six years.


                       the sources of soft money

       Soft money has grown rapidly because both parties have been 
     increasingly successful in soliciting large soft money gifts. 
     Since at least 1988, both parties have had organized programs 
     to recruit large donors. In 1992, for example, the DNC and 
     RNC raised a total of $63 million in soft money, about 30 
     percent of which came from contributors of $100,000 or more. 
     The parties have also been successful in soliciting major 
     contributions from corporations and, primarily in the 
     Democratic Party, labor unions. The parties have thus 
     succeeded in gaining access to contributions from sources and 
     in amounts that were prohibited by the campaign finance 
     reforms of the 1970s.
       According to an analysis by the FEC, the parties have 
     raised an increasingly large number of contributions in this 
     manner. During the 1992 election cycle, the national party 
     committees' soft money accounts accepted at least 381 
     individual contributions in excess of $20,000 (the annual 
     federal party contribution limit) and about 11,000 
     contributions from sources that are prohibited from giving in 
     federal elections, particularly corporations and labor 
     unions. By the 1996 election cycle, these figures had more 
     than doubled. The national party committees received nearly 
     1,000 individual contributions of more than $20,000 and 
     approximately 27,000 contributions from sources prohibited 
     from giving hard money.
       The business community is by far the most important source 
     of soft money, as shown in Table 5 (page 26). According to 
     one independent analysis, businesses provided $55.9 million 
     of the $102.2 million in soft money received by national 
     party committees during the 1994 election cycle. In 1998, 
     these organizations had donated more than $105 million of the 
     more than $200 million received through October. The vast 
     majority of this money came from corporations rather than 
     trade associations or other incorporated organizations. These 
     figures do not, of course, include individual contributions 
     made by members of the business community.
       A substantial share of this money came from large 
     contributions. In 1998 at least 218 corporations donated more 
     than $100,000, compared with 96 that gave this amount in 
     1994. Sixteen corporations gave $500,000 or more, whereas 
     only four gave at this level four years earlier.
       Further evidence of the role of business contributions in 
     the growth of soft money is found in a 1997 analysis 
     conducted by the Los Angeles Times, which found that soft 
     money donations made by the 544 largest public and private 
     U.S. companies had more than tripled between 1992 and 1996, 
     growing from $16 million to $51 million. In comparison, the 
     contributions made by PACs maintained by these companies rose 
     only from $43 million to $52 million.
       The largest soft money donors tend to be companies or 
     industries that are heavily regulated by the federal 
     government or those whose profits can be dramatically 
     affected by government policy. For example, according to the 
     Center for Responsive Politics' analysis of 1996 donors:
       ``Tobacco companies and their executives, who have faced 
     concerted federal efforts to strengthen the regulations 
     governing tobacco sales and advertising, as well as the 
     possibility of congressional action to settle ongoing 
     lawsuits, gave a total of $6.83 million in 1996, with $5.77 
     million donated to the Republicans and $1.06 million to the 
     Democrats. This group was led by Philip Morris, which donated 
     the most soft money of all contributors in 1996, giving a 
     total of about $3 million, $2.52 million of which went to the 
     Republicans. RJR Nabisco gave a total of $1.44 million, with 
     $1.18 million going to the Republicans.''
  There is a study by Professor Kathleen Jamieson of the Annenberg 
School at the University of Pennsylvania, in which she describes not 
only the political contributions of the tobacco companies but the 
amount of lobbying fees which, according to her, is the most in the 
history of American politics.
  I will be reading that and inserting it in the Record at the proper 
time. It goes on to list a number of the large contributions.
  Finally, the effects of soft money on the political system. This is 
the view, of course, of the CED:

       The rise of soft money has greatly increased the flow of 
     money in national elections and has turned party fundraising 
     into a frenetic and never ending chase for large 
     contributions. As the range of party activities financed with 
     soft money has increased, party organizations have engaged in 
     more aggressive and directed efforts to raise soft dollars. 
     The parties therefore have sought ever larger amounts from 
     soft money donors and have pursued new sources of soft money 
     contributions, especially among members of the business 
     community.
       One of the primary ways parties obtain very large 
     contributions is by providing donors with access to federal 
     elected officials. The most highly publicized and 
     controversial example of the access and privilege afforded 
     soft money donors is the use of the White House during the 
     1996 election cycle as a venue for dinners and other events 
     with President Clinton. While money was not raised at these 
     events, they were clearly designed to reward past soft money 
     donors and stimulate future contributions. Published reports 
     of these sessions sparked a controversy that raised serious 
     questions as to whether access to the White House was for 
     sale and fueled public cynicism about the influence enjoyed 
     by wealthy contributors. Further examination of the 
     Democratic Party's public disclosure reports revealed that 
     the Democratic National Committee had deposited at least $3 
     million in illegal or questionable contributions into their 
     soft money accounts.
       The Democratic Party's 1996 fundraising activities, 
     however, are only one example of the consequences of 
     unrestricted party fundraising. In recent years, both major 
     parties have offered soft money donors access to elected 
     leaders in exchange for contributions. White House officials 
     and congressional leaders have been asked to appear at party 
     soft money fund-raisers, participate in party-sponsored 
     policy briefings, attend weekend retreats with donors, and 
     play a role in other small group meetings. Elected officials 
     have even been recruited by the party committees to solicit 
     soft money donations from potential contributors, especially 
     from their own financial supporters and others with whom they 
     have relationships.
       Federal officeholders have thus assisted their parties in 
     raising funds for issue advocacy advertising, voter 
     registration, election day turnout drives, and other 
     activities that directly benefit their own campaigns for 
     office. They have also participated in fundraising efforts 
     directed at donors whose interests are directly influenced by 
     federal policy decisions. Such activities place undue 
     pressure on potential donors. Businesses, in particular, are 
     induced to contribute to keep up with their competitors or 
     ensure their own access to lawmakers.
       Given the size and source of most soft money contributions, 
     the public cannot help but believe that these donors enjoy 
     special influence and receive special favors. The suspicion 
     of corruption deepens public cynicism and diminishes public 
     confidence in government. More important, these activities 
     raise the likelihood of actual corruption. Indeed, we believe 
     it is only a matter of time before another major scandal 
     develops within the soft money system.

  Mr. President, I have often said that the scandal in Washington in 
1996 was not Monica Lewinsky. The scandal in Washington was a 
debasement of virtually every institution of government carried out by 
the Clinton administration when the Lincoln Bedroom was rented out, 
when access to the President--I think it was Mr. Chung who said the 
White House is like the subway: You have to put in money in order to 
open the gates.
  I have a memo that is a public document. It is a memo from the 
Democratic National Committee to the White House that lists activities 
to be coordinated with the White House by the DNC for $100,000 givers 
and says--I think it is the third or fourth item on the list--seats on 
official trade missions. That was the scandal in Washington, and the 
ongoing scandal, of course, is the failure of the Attorney General to 
pursue these very well documented allegations.
  I do agree with the CED when they say at the end: ``Indeed, we 
believe it is only a matter of time before another major scandal 
develops within the soft money system.''
  That is what we are trying to prevent. We had a spirited debate 
yesterday about this issue, and I tried to point out that I think these 
huge amounts of money have made decent and good people do things they 
should not otherwise do. That is an example which should be cited in 
these scandals I just described in the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign.

[[Page 25531]]

  We have to try to restrain the system. I am fully aware it will never 
be completely the kind of system we want it to be, but I also will at a 
later time, because I have been talking a long time, chronicle that 
throughout American history we have had cycles. We have had cycles 
where the system has been cleaned up, as Teddy Roosevelt was able to do 
in 1907. I continue to quote extensively from him and read him as he 
talks about the corrupting influence of the robber barons at the turn 
of the century.
  Then we had, of course, the scandals of 1974 which caused us to clean 
up again. And if we succeed in cleaning up this system 10, 15, or 20 
years from now, we will be back--maybe not me, maybe not Russ Feingold, 
maybe not Senator McConnell or Senator Bennett, but there will be 
others who will be back because we know that money in politics flows 
like water through cracks.
  What I read was how we had gone in the 1970s from a virtual 
nonexistence of the so-called soft money to the point where we are now 
awash in it. Sooner or later we will clean this up, and then sooner or 
later, unfortunately, it will need cleaning up again. That is why 
legislatures do not go into session and adjourn permanently.
  In 1986, we cleaned up the Tax Code. We did a good job. We took 3 
million Americans off the tax rolls, something I think overall, despite 
some flaws associated with it, was a good bill. We need to clean up the 
Tax Code again. It is now 44,000 pages long. We need to change it from 
the cornucopia of good deals for special interests and a chamber of 
horrors for average American citizens.
  Why should a lower- or middle-income American have to go to an 
accountant to fill out their tax return? Why is it that it is 44,000 
pages long? Why is it that we cannot break the grip of the teachers 
unions to reform education? Why is it we cannot come together 
reasonably and give patients who are members of HMOs decent, reasoned, 
balanced rights? Why is it that we cannot restructure the military so 
we can meet the challenges of the future we face in the next century? 
Events around the world have, again, amply demonstrated, such as in 
Pakistan, we ought to be able to cope with some very serious challenges 
in the next century in the military, but we cannot restructure it. It 
takes 2 months to get 24 Apache helicopters from Germany to Albania. 
They train and crash two, and we never use them in the conflict.
  We need to move forward on this issue. We need to do it, and I hope 
the sponsors of the amendment that is presently under consideration 
will recognize this is the same amendment which stalled us out last 
time. I believe we can make progress by moving forward with an amending 
process which requires votes which requires debate. I believe we can do 
that.
  I commend to my colleagues, particularly on my side of the aisle, who 
are involved with the business community, this little booklet. Major 
executives, major corporations in America have become sick and tired of 
being sick and tired. I cannot tell how many of them have told me--and 
I am sure they have told my colleagues privately--they are tired of the 
phone calls, they are tired of being dunned, they are tired of being 
called upon to give to both parties.
  Senator McConnell said yesterday, in response to the comment that the 
major corporations now give to both parties, they have a right to be 
duplicitous.
  I do not deny him that right to be duplicitous. I hope we could 
arrange a system where they do not feel they have to be duplicitous. 
That is what this object is all about.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their patience and I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, there are a number of Republican 
Senators anxious to offer amendments, and I would like to create an 
environment in which people can come over, offer their amendment, 
discuss it, and lay it aside.
  Senator Bennett has been sitting here patiently for some time. He and 
Senator Burns have an important amendment related to the Internet.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent the pending two amendments be laid 
aside in order for Senator Bennett to offer an amendment, along with 
Senator Burns, regarding Internet free speech, and that no second-
degree amendments be in order prior to a vote in relation to the 
amendment. I further ask----
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Could I finish?
  I further ask consent that the vote occur on or in relation to the 
amendment at 5:30 p.m., on Monday, and there be 5 minutes, equally 
divided, for closing remarks just prior to the vote, and following the 
debate today, the amendment be laid aside until that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, and I will object, I say to 
my friend from Kentucky, these amendments can still be offered, but we 
think they should not be offered to the two amendments that are 
pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, what we have is a debate that is 
proceeding in such a way that amendments are not being allowed.
  One of the things we talked about this year, and Senator McCain 
indicated he wanted, was an open debate, in which Senators would be 
able to lay down their amendments, get debate, and get votes.
  I say to all of my colleagues, we have Senator Bennett and Senator 
Burns here with a very important amendment they would like to get 
offered. Senator Sessions is on the floor. He has an amendment he would 
like to offer. Senator Thompson and Senator Lieberman have an amendment 
they would like to offer. Senator Nickles has an amendment he would 
like to offer; Senator Hatch, in all likelihood. Senator Hagel has 
indicated he may be offering an amendment, as well.
  We have an opportunity here to lay down and discuss these amendments, 
lay them aside, and guarantee these Senators an opportunity to vote.
  I am somewhat confused about where we are. I thought the whole idea 
behind having 4 or 5 days of debate, I would say to my friend from 
Arizona--although he did not object; it was the assistant minority 
leader--I guess I am perplexed about where we are. I would like to 
protect the opportunity of my colleagues on the Republican side to 
offer amendments about which they feel strongly about.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am going to retain the floor, but I will be glad to 
yield for some observation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator from Kentucky yield to me?
  First of all, I believe we should move forward and have amendments. I 
would like to discuss it with all of us discussing it, go into a quorum 
call in a second, if we might.
  First of all, I would like to frame a parliamentary inquiry very 
quickly.
  Mr. President, if an amendment in the nature of a substitute were to 
be offered, how many votes would be needed to affirmatively adopt the 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator restate his question?
  Mr. McCAIN. If an amendment in the nature of a substitute were to be 
offered, how many votes would be needed to affirmatively adopt the 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator asking in terms of a simple 
majority?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am asking, if an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A simple majority would be required.
  Mr. McCAIN. If such an amendment were adopted, and it contained a new 
rules change, how many votes would be required to invoke cloture?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixty seven, if 100 Senators are voting.
  Mr. McCAIN. During consideration of the pending, underlying 
legislation, would such an amendment be in order?

[[Page 25532]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. My point is, a little parliamentary tactic was played 
early yesterday which did not start things off in the manner which we 
had sort of hoped it would--that a rule was adopted that now requires 
67 votes. But as most parliamentary tactics, it can be negated by a 
simple substitute amendment that could be propounded by any Senator, 
which amendment, in the form of a substitute, would then negate the 
rule change, which then would bring us back to the position that we are 
of 60 votes.
  So I say to my friend from Kentucky, when we agree to further 
amendments or we agree to his unanimous consent request--which none of 
us has seen, which the Senator did not take the time to show me--we 
have to be a little bit careful and cautious as to what we agree to.
  So I want to move forward. I want to move forward with amendments. I 
will be glad to go into a quorum call and sit down with all of the 
Senators present on the floor and see if we can't work something out.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Do I have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. I still have the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe I did not yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky yielded to the 
Senator from Arizona for a question.
  Mr. McCAIN. No. I asked if the Senator would yield. I did not ask if 
the Senator would yield for a question.
  Mr. McCONNELL. He did not ask me to yield the floor, and I did not 
yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, might I suggest a solution to the 
problem of my friend from Arizona. He might want to look at the 
amendments. If he does not find them offensive, maybe he would want to 
give his Republican colleagues an opportunity to lay down their 
amendments, to discuss them, and lay them aside, with the understanding 
that, obviously, they would get a vote at someplace down the road, 
unless they were filibustered.
  I would ask my friend from Arizona, what would be wrong in taking a 
look at the amendments, one by one, and if they met the Senator's 
approval, maybe he would give our Republican colleagues an opportunity 
to have some votes?
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator would allow----
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield for a question.
  Mr. McCAIN. I cannot ask you a question. I can only answer. You can 
yield the floor, and I will be glad to yield the floor back.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I do not yield the floor, but there must be some way 
for the Senator from Arizona to express himself. I will be glad to 
yield to him for a question.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will try to frame it as a question.
  Is the Senator aware that up until half an hour ago we were not 
allowed to see the amendment nor have we been able to see your proposed 
unanimous consent request--we were not allowed to look at it. Now we 
have a chance to look at it. We would be glad to look at it, but I 
still say, if the Senator from Kentucky wants to really move forward, 
then we go into a quorum call, we sit down, as has been my habit in 13 
years on the floor here, and see if we cannot work out an agreement. If 
we cannot, then we will not. But that is the way we usually do it.
  I want to assure the Senator from Kentucky that, from my viewpoint, 
as long as we are protected, as long as we can make sure this is a 
straightforward process, then I am eager for additional amendments to 
be considered when debate on this particular amendment has been 
consumed.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe I have the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Might I suggest the Senator from Arizona and the 
Senator from Montana and the Senator from Utah have a discussion about 
this while I make some remarks. Maybe the Senator from Arizona might be 
satisfied that there is no chicanery afoot here between the Senator 
from Utah and the Senator from Montana. Might I suggest to the Senator 
from Arizona, since the objection came from the assistant Democratic 
leader, you might want to include him in the discussion.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield for a question.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Kentucky, in response to a question 
asked by the Senator from Arizona, the Senator stated to me--and it was 
reported in the press this morning--that the Senator yesterday, in the 
effort with the amendment for a rules change, has indicated that the 
intent of the Senator from Kentucky was to change the rule, not to 
change the number of Senators it would take to invoke cloture in this 
matter. The Senator has stated, as I said, publicly and stated to me 
personally that in this matter we would only need 60 votes.
  Is that what the Senator said?
  Mr. McCONNELL. That is exactly what the Senator said. I am not 
prepared to withdraw that yet, as Senator McCain indicated that that 
could be displaced, in any event, by some substitute, which the Senator 
from Nevada has already offered. I reject the notion that there is some 
devious notion at work. Besides, I don't even want to get into that. 
The only issue before us, I say to the Senator from Nevada, is whether 
or not we can get consent to have some other Senators take advantage --
we have had all this discussion about having an open debate on campaign 
finance reform. We can't even get amendments laid down for discussion. 
We are not talking about controversial amendments, I don't think. 
People do have the option to vote against them.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield for a question.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, the Senator has indicated there are two 
amendments the Senator wishes, he and/or his colleagues, to file today. 
I have stated that as far as the two amendments pending, one by Senator 
Daschle and one by this Senator, we would not agree to set those aside. 
However, the record is quite clear; there are two spots still open in 
the tree that these Senators could file their amendments any time they 
want today. All they need is recognition.
  Mr. McCAIN.  Will the Senator from Kentucky yield again for a 
question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to make a parliamentary 
inquiry with respect to the amending process in relation to what the 
Senator from Nevada just suggested. Is it true that a first and second-
degree amendment are pending, as offered by the minority leader and the 
assistant minority leader, that would take consent to lay aside?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is it true that although two additional amendment 
slots are available to offer amendments, if amendments were offered and 
agreed to, and an amendment offered by the minority leader was 
subsequently adopted, the action taken on the two additional amendment 
slots would, in effect, become moot?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. With this record now made by the Chair, I regret that 
our Democratic colleagues are blocking amendment consideration during 
this campaign finance reform bill. What we are trying to do is to give 
Republican Senators an opportunity to offer amendments. If I understand 
the Chair correctly, where we are is that without consent, either from 
the assistant Democratic leader or the Senator from Arizona, my 
Republican colleagues are not going to be able to offer an amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will yield for a question.

[[Page 25533]]


  Mr. McCAIN. I want to tell the Senator that the Senator from Montana 
and the Senator from Utah and I and the Senator from Wisconsin are in 
agreement that an amendment by Senator Bennett and Senator Conrad would 
be in order, unless the Senator from Wisconsin has additional comments 
about the pending amendment, but that it is also proper and appropriate 
to continue the debate until finished on the pending amendment and 
that, of course, we would like to make sure that any unanimous consent 
agreement we are in agreement with. I hope the Democratic leader would 
also agree with that approach to the pending business because I am not 
in any way in disagreement with the view of the Senator from Kentucky 
that we need to move forward with the process.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Arizona. Maybe I should make 
the consent request again.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending two amendments be laid aside 
in order for Senator Bennett and Senator Burns to offer an amendment 
regarding Internet free speech and that no second-degree amendments be 
in order prior to the vote in relation to the amendment. I further ask 
consent that the vote occur on or in relation to the amendment at 5:30 
p.m. on Monday, and that there be 5 minutes equally divided for closing 
remarks just prior to the vote and, following the debate today, the 
amendment be laid aside until that time.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the amendment, which I personally haven't 
seen, but I am sure has been shared with the staff, we have not had an 
opportunity to discuss, to even show the amendment to the ranking 
member of the Commerce Committee, the ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee, both of whom are tremendously interested in anything dealing 
with the Internet. First of all, to lock in a time, that is something 
we couldn't do.
  Secondly, I say to my friend from Kentucky, there are no more votes 
until 5:30. That is an announcement made by the majority leader. So we 
are not stopping anyone from voting. That decision has been made by the 
majority. We would have been happy to stay and vote. I have been here 
the last several days anyway. If there had been some notice there would 
be votes, other people would be here.
  I say there is ample opportunity to talk about any of these issues in 
whatever length anyone cares to. We have a vote scheduled at 5:30 on a 
judicial nomination or whatever the majority leader decides. We have 
cloture votes that are going to take place on Tuesday. I think we have 
plenty to do on this.
  I might say in passing that I think now the majority knows how we 
feel all the time when we can't offer amendments to pending 
legislation. On this legislation, we have two amendments that have been 
filed: One dealing with the Shays-Meehan legislation, and one dealing 
with the so-called soft money amendment. That is what this debate is 
all about. That is what it should focus on. Objection is heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me try another approach, if I may. I heard the 
distinguished assistant Democratic leader say the time was a problem. 
Let me try it a different way.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending two amendments be laid aside 
in order for Senator Bennett and Senator Burns to offer an amendment 
regarding Internet free speech, and that following the reporting by the 
clerk, the amendment be laid aside.
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I will not 
object. I think it is important that we move forward. I think there are 
Senators on the floor who want to propose amendments and who want to 
debate. I want to say--perhaps this is the only time in this entire 
debate the Senator from Kentucky and I are in total agreement--that we 
should allow an amendment by Senator Bennett and Senator Burns, even if 
I am not in agreement with that amendment. I think it is very 
destructive of the entire proposition with which we began this debate, 
and that is that we would allow amendments and votes. I do not object.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I say this: 
These amendments can be offered. There is no question they can be 
offered. It has already been indicated that they be offered. There are 
two spots still open on the tree. Objection is heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am told by the parliamentary experts 
who serve us that to amend the rest of the tree is essentially a waste 
of time. So as a practical matter, what our Democratic colleagues are 
doing is preventing Republicans from offering amendments. This has the 
result of putting us back to the way we have handled this in the past, 
which the Senator from Arizona and I thought the other side had agreed 
we would not do this time, which was to allow amendments. The practical 
effect of where we are now is we are going to have two cloture votes, 
which is the way this issue has been dealt with in recent years, and it 
prevents Senators from offering amendments, having them debated, and 
having them voted on. I think that is unfortunate.
  Mr. President, on the substance of the issue, unless there is some 
change of heart on the part of my good friend from Nevada, and I see 
he, with a determined look on his face, has taken his seat, I assume 
the last word on that issue has been uttered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I prevail one more time on the Senator from 
Kentucky to yield for a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield for a question.
  Mr. McCAIN. According to the parliamentary exchange that I heard 
between you and the President, the Senator from Utah still can offer an 
amendment; is that correct?
  Mr. McCONNELL. He can offer an amendment, but if their amendment were 
adopted, his is wiped out. What I am told is it, in effect, makes the 
offering of the amendment an exercise in futility. That is what I am 
advised.
  Mr. McCAIN. By the brains?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, by our super-Parliamentarian.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator for his response.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Arizona for being willing to 
let our colleagues offer their amendments. Let me repeat, where that 
leaves us is we have been shut out, as a practical matter, by the other 
side and denied an opportunity to offer important amendments that many 
of us believe would have improved this bill.
  I want to encourage Senator Burns and Senator Bennett, who are on the 
floor, to go ahead and say what they would have done had they had the 
opportunity to do it. I think this is a very constructive amendment, 
and if they will just indulge me for one moment, I will yield the 
floor, and I hope they get an opportunity to discuss the amendment they 
would have offered had they had an opportunity to do so.
  Mr. BURNS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield for a question.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I assume we will have a vote on the 
Democratic amendment; is that correct?
  Mr. McCONNELL. There are two cloture votes. The Democratic leader 
laid down what is typically referred to as Shays-Meehan, the bill that 
passed the House. The assistant Democratic leader second-degreed that 
with the underlying ``McCain-Feingold lite'' and filed cloture on both.
  Under the rules of the Senate, those votes would occur Tuesday 
morning. The dilemma we now have is, we are in a position where 
colleagues on our side of the aisle are unable to offer amendments.
  What I suggest to my friend from Montana is----
  Mr. BURNS. Once the cloture vote has been taken and cloture is not 
agreed to, then what happens?

[[Page 25534]]


  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe the Republican leader will have concluded 
that, after 5 days of this debate, we would go on to other matters 
before the Senate. From a parliamentary point of view, we will be right 
where we are now if cloture is not invoked. So all that will have 
happened is, Senators such as you and the Senator from Utah will have 
been denied the opportunity to offer amendments.
  Mr. BURNS. Will we move off this issue and go to another issue?
  Mr. McCONNELL. That is my understanding. The majority leader has 
other important matters he would like the Senate to turn to after 
Tuesday. That is his decision.
  What I suggest to both of the Senators, who have been waiting 
patiently, is to describe the amendment that would have been offered 
had the Senator been given an opportunity to do so, and put that in the 
Record. Maybe at some point between now and Tuesday, there will be some 
change of heart. But I think we ought to say to the Senate what the 
Senator wanted to be able to do had he been permitted.
  Mr. BURNS. I have a very short statement on that. I will yield to the 
advice of the Senator from Kentucky and also yield to my good friend 
from Utah as to what he would like to do.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I don't have a time schedule today. I 
will spend the entire weekend in the Washington area. My friend from 
Montana has an airplane to catch, so I am happy to step aside and let 
him make whatever statement he wants to make and delay my comments 
until he has finished.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair.
  The amendment that was crafted by Senator Bennett and myself is a 
very important amendment regarding this business of freedom of speech 
and how it is connected to the issue of campaign finance reform. What 
the amendment actually says is that citizens who use the Internet to 
express themselves politically are not subject to ``Big Brother'' 
policing imposed by the Federal election bureaucrats. The amendment 
simply prevents the FEC from defining political communications by 
individuals over the Internet as campaign contributions.
  I thank my friend from Utah for his input when we crafted this 
amendment. I should emphasize to my colleagues that this amendment is 
very narrow in scope and covers only individuals who don't receive 
compensation for their Internet communications. I think that is very 
important--individuals who do not receive compensation for their 
Internet communications. Further, these individuals cannot solicit 
political contributions using the Internet.
  If an American citizen feels strongly enough about a candidate or an 
issue to create a web site to express his views, he should not be 
subject to oversight by the Federal Election Commission. Free 
expression is the founding principle of this country.
  Currently--and not a surprise to those of us who have seen the 
explosion of the Internet--there are 90 million Americans who use the 
World Wide Web to access information, e-mail, and other services every 
day. Undoubtedly, many of these communications are political in nature. 
Are we to expect the FEC to somehow monitor and regulate all of this 
political dialog? To me, that is a very chilling scenario.
  I myself use the unique capabilities of the Internet for a host of 
things--to communicate with my constituents, for services. We have a 
web page that allows my constituents access to my office 
electronically. Every week, I do a ``cybercast'' from my web site, 
where I answer questions posed to me by my constituents from Montana 
and across the country.
  By the way, once you go on the web, you are everywhere. Just 
yesterday, in my cybercast, I commented on the tremendous, productive 
debate that has resulted from the increased use of this great thing we 
call the Internet. It allows any individual to become a publisher and 
have the same access in the marketplace of ideas as the largest 
political party, or corporation, for that matter.
  We have seen the leveling of marketing because one person with an 
idea for a service or goods can now go on the web and take on the 
largest corporations and be successful. That is what makes it a very 
powerful tool.
  We have seen spectacular growth result from the upward spiral of the 
Internet. A recent Commerce Department study has indicated that over a 
third of the U.S. increase in gross domestic product since 1995 is 
directly traceable to information technologies and, in particular, the 
Internet. Small businesses and individuals have used those capabilities 
of this new tool to tap into global markets and compete directly with 
large corporations.
  Even more important than the raw economic numbers, however, is the 
flowering of the discussion of ideas that has been fostered by the 
Internet. Whether on web sites, chat rooms, or e-mail, the revolution 
in information technology has resulted in the ongoing, vigorous, 
sustained debates on the critical issues that now face our country.
  A year ago, I was in China and there, too, as the capability grows, 
the Internet grows--not as fast as we have experienced here in this 
country, because of infrastructure more than anything else, but it is 
growing. And with it is a growing fear in that country where the 
Government controls every aspect of information; the fear of the 
freedom of flow on the Internet is very real.
  The Internet uniquely provides the ability for any individual to 
express his political beliefs, and we think that should not be 
infringed upon. To limit free speech of individuals in the very country 
that created the Internet is as dangerous as it is misguided. As 
chairman of the Senate Communications Subcommittee, and cochairman of 
the Internet Caucus, I have been convinced time and time again of the 
folly of trying to regulate the Internet.
  Government should not impose burdensome regulations on political 
speech on the Internet, or any other medium. Instead, the Government 
should act to keep the Internet and those medium outlets a free speech 
zone.
  I urge my colleagues, if this amendment sees the light of day and 
comes to this floor, to adopt this amendment as part of the ongoing 
reform.
  I thank the Chair. I thank my good friend from Kentucky.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before my friend from Montana leaves for 
Montana, he can offer his amendment. The Senator from Utah can offer 
his amendment to two slots to which I previously referred. If they are 
subsequently adopted, they could try to defeat, of course, the Daschle-
Reid amendments by votes, or after the Reid amendment is disposed of, 
they could still offer their amendments to the Daschle amendment. In 
short, there are occasions in the Senate when it doesn't work by 
majority rule but most of the time majority rules. In this instance, 
the majority rules. All they need to do is pass this amendment and 
defeat the Reid-Daschle amendment.
  It is a very simple procedure. They can offer their amendments. They 
not only can talk about them but they can offer both of them.
  Remember the procedure we are now working under. There will be no 
votes this day or on Monday until 5:30. We will come in sometime 
Monday. There will be further discussion on this bill. There are people 
on my side of the aisle, on the minority side, who still want to talk 
about the bill.
  Also, there has been some talk about pulling down this bill on 
Tuesday. Of course, it is 5 days. I know the majority leader recognizes 
the fifth day is on Wednesday. But also, you can't automatically go to 
something else. It takes, again, a majority vote to do that.
  As I have indicated, all they need are majority votes to adopt the 
Burns amendment and the Bennett amendment and have a majority vote to 
go to some other issue rather than campaign finance reform.

[[Page 25535]]

  We are operating, we think, in good faith. There are still two spots 
to offer their amendments. If there are two Senators who wish to offer 
their amendments, they can certainly do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as a practical matter, I repeat what I 
said earlier. The offering of amendments to the rest of the tree would 
be a waste of time. Several of the amendments my colleagues want to 
offer would not be germane postcloture.
  We are, as a result of the actions of the other side, on a glidepath 
to two cloture votes on Tuesday. But we will have an opportunity to 
discuss amendments that would have been offered could they have been 
offered and that would have been offered, if this parliamentary 
situation would have allowed it.
  I encourage, in addition, Senator Burns, who has already talked about 
his amendment, and Senators Sessions, Thompson, Lieberman, Nickles, 
Hatch, and Hagel to take the opportunity--if not today at least on 
Monday--to come over to the Senate and describe the amendments they 
would have offered and put them in the Record so everyone is aware of 
the opportunities that were missed.
  I was listening with some interest to the Senator from Arizona 
earlier in describing what he perceived to be the position of the 
business community in this country with regard to non-Federal money. 
The Senator described the views of a business group which until a few 
months ago no one had ever heard of, and more specifically the 
recommendations of a subcommittee of that group that was dominated by 
businessmen who have contributed to Democrats over 2-to-1 and leaving 
out of the description the remainder of that business groups' views on 
campaign finance reform, which are for public funding, taxpayer 
funding, of elections and spending limits, which is such a bizarre 
position these days. It hasn't even been advocated by the other side in 
the last few years. I think it is safe to say that this little-known 
business group does not represent the views of American business.
  Let me take a few moments to outline the views of American business 
on the issue before us.
  There are 10 business groups representing over 4 million businesses, 
and 40 million employees representing the Business and Industry 
Political Action Committee, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National 
Mining Association, the National Restaurant Association, the National 
Association of Realtors, the National Association of Manufacturers, the 
National Association of Business Political Action Committees, the 
Associated Builders and Contractors, the National Association of 
Wholesaler-Distributors, and the National Association of Broadcasters, 
a media group, all of whom signed the following letter:

       As the leading business associations in America, we oppose 
     the current campaign finance reform legislation being debated 
     in the Senate and strongly oppose that which recently passed 
     the U.S. House of Representatives. * * * the tenets of 
     McCain-Feingold and the House-passed Shays-Meehan Bill run 
     contrary to the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of 
     speech.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Further regulating issue advocacy should be rejected as an 
     infringement on the basic right of free speech. We are also 
     concerned that these bills decrease opportunities and 
     incentives for citizen participation in the election process.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Just as over-regulation distorts the commercial 
     marketplace, so can over-regulation distort the marketplace 
     of political ideas.

                           *   *   *   *   *

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the 
Record, as well as an excellent letter from the National Association of 
Manufacturers on the same subject, and a letter by the Chamber of 
Commerce on the same subject.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       Business-Industry Political


                                  Action Committee of America,

                                  Washington, DC, October 7, 1999.
     Hon. --
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear --: As the leading business associations in America, 
     we oppose the current campaign finance reform legislation 
     being debated in the Senate and strongly oppose that which 
     recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives. While most 
     of the nation's business community agrees with the need for 
     some meaningful reform of the Federal laws regarding campaign 
     finance, the tenets of McCain-Feingold and the House-passed 
     Shays-Meehan Bill run contrary to the First Amendment 
     guarantees of freedom of speech.
       This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing yet 
     another case on the constitutionality of limiting free 
     speech. Further regulating issue advocacy should be rejected 
     as an infringement of the basic right of free speech. We are 
     also concerned that these bills decrease opportunities and 
     incentives for citizen participation in the election process.
       Comprehensive campaign finance legislation has not been 
     passed since 1974 and contribution caps established at that 
     time have not been adjusted for inflation. The maximum 
     contribution of $1,000 in 1974 is worth only $303 today. 
     These artificially low ceilings have forced candidates and 
     political parties to seek alternative ways to finance 
     effective participation in the election process. Candidates 
     now have more voters to reach and the cost of campaigning 
     continues to rise.
       Just as over-regulation distorts the commercial 
     marketplace, so can over-regulation distort the marketplace 
     of political ideas. Rather than regulating more, we would 
     suggest both complete and immediate disclosure of all 
     campaign contributions and raising or eliminating limits on 
     individual and PAC contributions.
       Eliminating or further limiting financial alternatives 
     basically used to fund get-out-the-vote drives or issue 
     awareness efforts, without corresponding actions to raise 
     personal and corporate limits, only exacerbates the funding 
     shortfalls of current campaigns and the increasingly lower 
     voter turnout.
           Sincerely,
         Gregory S. Casey, President and CEO, BIPAC; Thomas J. 
           Donohue, President and CEO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; 
           Richard L. Lawson, President and CEO, National Mining 
           Association; Stephen C. Anderson, President and CEO, 
           National Restaurant Association; Lee L. Verstandig, 
           Senior Vice President, Govt. Affairs, National 
           Association of Realtors; Jerry J. Jasinowski, 
           President, National Association of Manufacturers; David 
           Rehr, President, National Association of Business 
           Political Action Committees; Charlotte W. Herbert, Vice 
           President, Government Affairs, Associated Builders and 
           Contractors, Inc.; Dirk Van Dongen, President, National 
           Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; Edward O. 
           Fritts, President and CEO, National Association of 
           Broadcasters.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                             of Manufacturers,

                               Washington, DC, September 20, 1999.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: On behalf of the more than 14,000 
     members of the National Association of Manufacturers, 
     including approximately 10,500 small manufacturers, I want to 
     applaud your efforts in protecting the First Amendment rights 
     of individuals and organizations to participate in the 
     political process by opposing attempts to further regulate 
     campaign finance and political speech.
       I want to share our thoughts on campaign finance reform 
     with you:
       1. While the NAM has no formal policy on soft money, 
     manufacturers know that just as over-regulation distorts the 
     commercial marketplace, so can over-regulation distort the 
     marketplace of political ideas. The so-called soft money 
     issue emerged in response to earlier regulatory restrictions 
     imposed on the political system. Adding another layer of 
     regulations to cover the failures of previous regulatory 
     efforts will inevitably lead to further distortions. The NAM 
     believes that raising limits on individual and PAC 
     contributions is long overdue. The NAM supports full 
     disclosure of campaign contributions.
       2. The NAM is completely opposed to total or partial 
     government funding of congressional campaigns. The NAM 
     believes that our representative form of government functions 
     best when candidates seek voluntary contributions from 
     private citizens or citizen groups. Government funding 
     through tax dollars of candidates for the U.S. Senate and 
     House of Representatives would constitute drastic and costly 
     change in our electoral process. Such unwarranted federal 
     intrusion into the election process would also reverse the 
     present healthy trend toward a reduction in the many 
     pervasive levels of bureaucracy in the federal government. On 
     PACs: As many as 20 million Americans participate in nearly 
     4000 PACs. That is almost half of the total number of people 
     who voted in the last election cycle. PAC participation is an 
     exercise in free speech and voluntary political activity that 
     has brought millions into the political process.
       3. The Supreme Court has decided that money is a form of 
     speech. So, limitations on

[[Page 25536]]

     giving as a form of political speech, whether voluntary or 
     coerced, are limitations on the ability to exercise free 
     speech. Those of us in industry that have been highly 
     impacted by government regulation know that elections have 
     consequences and limitations on our ability to be involved in 
     the process is consequential to the support and election of 
     pro-growth candidates.
       4. Issue advocacy restrictions are very worrisome and 
     almost certainly unconstitutional. If the NAM ran ads today 
     about health care or Social Security reform that mention a 
     Congressman's vote on those issues but do not urge the 
     election or defeat of the Congressman, that's perfectly legal 
     under current law (for example, ``thank-you'' ads 
     manufacturers have run in recent years). Under previous 
     versions of the McCain-Feingold plan, this would change. 
     Running ads more than 60 days before a general election would 
     be constitutionally protected free speech, but running 
     identical ads less than 60 days before an election would be 
     highly regulated speech. NAM has no formal policy on 
     restrictions on issue advocacy, but is very troubled by them.
       5. The role of organized labor in the political process is 
     not adequately addressed by proponents of reform. The 
     involuntary collection of union dues for political purposes 
     is anathema to democracy. NAM policy states that ``The 
     involuntary collection and use of funds by labor unions for 
     political purposes should be prohibited by statute. The NAM 
     supports the codification of the Beck Supreme Court decision 
     and further paycheck protection measures that ensure that 
     union members cannot be forced to have mandatory union dues 
     go to political causes or organizations they do not 
     support.''
       In recent years, these five areas of concern have been the 
     principal reasons why the NAM has opposed campaign finance 
     reform legislation and the NAM Key Vote Advisory Committee 
     has named campaign finance reform a Key Manufacturing Vote. 
     The NAM has long advocated individual freedom and 
     participation by all citizens in the legislative and the 
     political process. Therefore, we must again oppose the 
     McCain-Feingold legislation.
       For all these reasons, oppositiion to McCain-Feingold, like 
     the Shays-Meehan bill in the House, will be designated a Key 
     Manufacturing Vote in the NAM voting record for the 106th 
     Congress.
       We greatly appreciate your leadership on this important 
     issue.
           Sincerely,
     Jerry J. Jasinowski.
                                  ____

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                               Washington, DC, September 14, 1999.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: On behalf of the U.S. Chamber of 
     Commerce, the world's largest business organization 
     representing more than three million businesses of every 
     size, sector and region, I want to applaud your efforts in 
     protecting the First Amendment rights of individuals and 
     organizations by opposing attempts to regulate ``issue 
     advocacy.''
       The U.S. Chamber has long advocated individual freedom and 
     unrestricted participation by all citizens in the legislative 
     and the political process. Therefore, we oppose the McCain/
     Feingold legislation. By restricting issue advocacy, we 
     believe the legislation is an infringement on the 
     constitutionally protected right of free speech of 
     individuals and organizations.
       After numerous press reports we feel it is imperative to 
     clarify our differences with some groups. The Chamber 
     believes in reasonable campaign finance reform proposals. We 
     support a system that relies on full disclosure, voluntary 
     participation, and the confidence in the electorate to make 
     sound decisions through the free exchange of ideas and 
     information. We believe true reform protects the First 
     Amendment rights of American citizens, organizations and 
     parties.
       The Chamber does not support taxpayer financing of 
     congressional races as it would dangerously extend the 
     government's role in the traditionally voluntary political 
     process based on individual choice. We believe spending 
     limits are unconstitutional and we will continue to adamantly 
     oppose restrictions on the use of ``issue advocacy'' as an 
     infringement on First Amendment rights.
       We greatly appreciate your leadership on this important 
     issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                              Tom.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it has been suggested that somehow 
members of the business community believe they have to contribute to 
political campaigns. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am 
familiar with a number of companies that do not contribute non-Federal 
money, as is their right. We appreciate those who do choose to support 
our party and give us an opportunity to engage in issue advocacy, voter 
turnout, and other projects that are funded by non-Federal money, which 
gives us an opportunity to compete in the marketplace of ideas and 
gives us a chance to win elections. For those who do choose to 
participate, we want to thank you.
  I also suggest to those who do not want to, don't feel obliged to. 
There are plenty other members of the business community who want to 
get involved, who want to help advance the cause that my party stands 
for, and we are grateful for their support.
  I don't know whether we are going to have any more speakers. I want 
to check with our floor staff and see if we might not be at a point to 
wrap it up.
  Mr. REID. Senator Feingold says he wants to speak for 10 or 15 
minutes on the bill. But other than that, we have no request for 
speakers on this side.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Senator Bennett might come back. But he 
will be here Monday as well and will be able to speak at that point.
  I see the Senator from Wisconsin is here and wishes to speak. I don't 
believe we have any other interest in speaking on this side.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we have had an excellent debate so far. 
I am pleased to have an opportunity to make a few comments essentially 
in summary on what we have covered.
  We have been debating an amendment. In fact, we have been debating 
two amendments. We have been debating two alternatives, both of which I 
like very much. One of them is the original version of the McCain-
Feingold bill, which is very similar to the Shays-Meehan bill that has 
been offered, and the other is essentially the underlying bill, the 
approach of simply banning soft money. We think that is well worth 
doing if we can get nothing else out of the Senate.
  I want to make it very clear. I, like my leader, the Senator from 
South Dakota, also support comprehensive reform. It is even a little 
bit amusing to me because I remember we had the first version of the 
McCain-Feingold bill. And when the decision was made to make it a 
little bit lighter in order to get more support, there was outcry by 
some that we had abandoned comprehensive reform.
  What is now the Shays-Meehan bill was said at that time not to be 
comprehensive, but today the Shays-Meehan bill is being called 
comprehensive reform.
  It is not comprehensive, I am the first to admit; not only that bill, 
not only our bill, but any of the bills that have been offered, 
including the original McCain-Feingold bill. I prefer public financing. 
So the question isn't: Is this bill comprehensive reform? There is no 
comprehensive reform being offered on the floor of the Senate in this 
debate. The question is whether we are advancing the cause of campaign 
finance reform in a meaningful way with these different alternatives.
  I think either alternative, Shays-Meehan or the McCain-Feingold soft 
money ban, does advance the cause of campaign finance reform.
  Then there are only two questions in deciding which approach to 
follow at this point in this Senate. The first question is: Can it 
pass? Can the legislation get over the filibuster in the Senate? The 
second question, and it is as important as the first question, maybe 
more important: Is it worth it to pass the bill assuming we can do it? 
That is the issue we have to address.
  On the first question, what can be passed in this body? I would love 
and have fought long and hard for years to be able to pass a bill 
through this body that includes not only a ban on soft money but that 
also deals with the phony issue ads that almost every American knows 
are campaign ads. But unlike the Senator from New Jersey, I have taken 
the time to sit down individually with every Republican Senator who has 
not supported our side in the past, who I thought might support our 
side on a pure soft money ban or some other alternative.
  I asked each Member what they want to see in a campaign finance 
reform bill. I did this largely with the help and special extra effort 
not only of Senator McCain, but also the Senator from Maine. This was a 
process we undertook in May and June and that continues today. I 
believe these Senators were being sincere with me. Some said

[[Page 25537]]

they would not support anything and enjoyed the conversation. Some told 
me maybe there was a way they could support a stronger bill. The 
underlying theme from these conversations was whereas they couldn't 
support the provisions having to do with phony issue ads, many of them 
were open to the possibility of simply banning soft money. Some said: 
Let's ban soft money and do a couple of other things, too.
  There was a thread that came through all of these conversations. I 
can say to my colleagues with absolute certainty: I don't believe there 
is any scenario where the phony issue ads issue can be dealt with in 
this body on this piece of legislation. We cannot get 60 votes for it. 
And if we don't get 60 votes, the efforts in the House a few weeks ago 
that were so admirable are wasted. The House passed a bill that has 
both the soft money ban, and good provisions dealing with the phony 
issue ads. If we don't pass a bill in the Senate at all, we all know 
the process. This isn't Nebraska; it is not a unicameral legislature. 
There are two Houses. If we can't get a bill out of this body, there 
can't be a conference; or if the House can't agree to the Senate 
position, we can't have campaign finance reform.
  As great as the Shays-Meehan approach or the original McCain-Feingold 
approach is, I guarantee, I know we can't get 60 votes for that 
approach in this Senate at this stage of the process.
  It is fair to ask whether or not we can pass the soft money ban. We 
don't know for sure. But we do know this: This long, difficult battle 
has been won, one piece at a time. We are going to win it. The claim 
originally was, we only have a few supporters. Then the claim was, we 
just have Democrats and Senator McCain and Senator Thompson; we don't 
have a third Republican. Then Senator Collins came on board. Then 
Senator Specter came on board. Then they said, there are only 49 votes; 
you don't have a majority, so you can't win. Then we were very 
fortunate to gain the support of three Senators--Senators Snowe, 
Jeffords, and Chafee, and we had a majority in the Senate. Then they 
said, you can't get 60 votes.
  Fair enough. We know we need 60 votes, if people want to play the 
game that way--and it is the way it is often played in the Senate to 
win. For the last year, we have needed eight votes; we need eight 
votes. Because we had made the decision to listen to our Republican 
colleagues who were willing to listen, to try to just do a soft money 
ban if we can't do anything else, we now only need seven votes, as the 
Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, has cosponsored the McCain-Feingold 
bill to ban soft money. Now it is seven.
  Maybe in a couple of days it will be five or three or two. The point 
is, in this game we lose and lose and lose and lose until we win, and 
we only have to win once. That is what legislating is all about. We can 
win. We must find out whether it is possible to win by finding out how 
many Members of this body answer the following question with a yes or a 
no. The question is, Are you for or against party soft money?
  Do you think people should be able to give unlimited contributions to 
the political parties, $100,000, $250,000, $500,000, $1 million--even 
though corporations and unions have been prohibited from doing that for 
decades in the United States? That is the question. Are Members for 
soft money or are they against soft money? Are they for a system of 
legalized bribery or against a system of legalized bribery? That is the 
question.
  I do believe there is no contest, no question as to which approach is 
most likely to break the filibuster. It is the approach of simply 
banning soft money.
  That leads to the second question, and this is the excellent exchange 
we had with Senator Torricelli today. It was all about whether it will 
make a difference, whether it is worth it, whether it will do anything 
at all if we are able to only ban party soft money. It is a fair 
question because I don't think there is any doubt there will always be 
attempts to avoid the ban and have the money flow to other sources.
  But my belief that it would make a huge difference to ban party soft 
money in this process is not some kind of utopian version. It is not 
some kind of a millennial fervor about being able to sever the 
connection between money and politics. I believe that is eternal. There 
will always be some connection between money and politics.
  The question is whether we can do something to close an outrageous 
loophole that has caused America to not have a campaign finance reform 
system at all--which is exactly what the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. 
Thompson, has said on many occasions. That is the question. Is it worth 
closing this loophole?
  Senator McCain said it well. We may have to do more. Even this 
attempt may in 10 years be void. It is similar to tax reform. Nobody 
thinks when we do tax reform, as we did in 1986, that it is forever. It 
works for a while and we have to come back and do it again. That is why 
the Senator from Arizona said we don't adjourn permanently. Problems 
recur. Thomas Jefferson even said we should have a revolution every 20 
years. Surely, it is not such a bad thing if we have campaign finance 
reform attempted every 20 years.
  I do think it is worth it. The reason I think it is worth it is 
because of the staggering figures I think many Americans are not aware 
of which are demonstrated on this chart. Do the American people know 
the kind of money that is being given to the political parties in this 
country, in a country that is supposed to be based on the principle of 
one person, one vote? How can they believe they are operating under a 
system of one person, one vote when enormous contributions can be given 
by corporations, unions, and individuals that make a farce out of the 
Watergate era reforms?
  These figures bear repetition. In 1992, 52 people gave over $200,000 
to one of the major political petitioners. That is a lot. But by 1996, 
219 people had given over $200,000. What about over $300,000? In 1992, 
only 20 people had given $300,000 to the major political parties. That 
figure sextupled--120 people instead of 20 gave in 1996 that amount.
  What about those who gave $400,000? These aren't groups that 
represent a bunch of individuals. These are one individual or one union 
or one corporation, each giving $400,000. Thirteen entities or persons 
did that in 1992, but in 1996 it was 1979.
  Finally, $500,000, a half a million dollars--people or corporations 
or unions giving a half a million dollars to one of the political 
parties: there were 9 people or groups who did that in 1992; by 1996 it 
was 50. I can just imagine what that figure is going to look like in 
the year 2000. It will be enormous. In a system where people are 
supposed to generally have their votes count the same, some people get 
to give these unlimited contributions to the national political 
parties.
  To tie this into the debate from yesterday about the issue of 
corruption and the appearance of corruption, I reminded my colleagues 
after the exchange here that the test that the Supreme Court has put 
forward as to whether you can ban contributions or limit contributions 
is whether there is corruption or the appearance of corruption. All I 
needed to do to drive this point home was to open up the newspaper this 
morning and on the front page of the Washington Post see this headline:

       Microsoft Targets Funding For Antitrust Office.


  Apparently Microsoft and their allies are not seeking to directly 
affect the litigation that is being conducted with regard to Microsoft 
by the Justice Department at this time; what they are trying to do, 
according to this article, is cut the overall funding for the Justice 
Department's Antitrust Division. In this context, if somehow things 
don't look right, there is the ever present possibility that there 
would be an appearance of corruption. It just so happens on the plane 
out here, next to my seat there was a copy of Forbes magazine and the 
Forbes 400. I read the whole thing.
  I found out to be in the Forbes 400 now it is not enough to have half 
a billion dollars. You are not on the team if you're only worth half a 
billion. You

[[Page 25538]]

get kicked off the Forbes 400 list. You have to have $620 million to be 
on the Forbes 400 list.
  Who do you think led that list? Who do you think was the lead in the 
whole thing? It was the Microsoft executive, of course, and Mr. Gates 
himself is so much more wealthy than the next wealthiest person that it 
is absolutely staggering.
  One chart in the magazine article showed five or six people and how 
their wealth was greater than the wealth of various countries. They put 
the picture of the head of the person next to the wealth of the 
country. In this context, where Microsoft wants the Justice 
Department's budget cut, to have a scenario where corporations and 
unions and individuals can give unlimited amounts of soft money 
certainly creates the potential for an appearance of corruption.
  I have no idea what Microsoft's or Bill Gates' actual contributions 
are, and I am not suggesting that they are making those contributions 
to influence the funding of the Justice Department. But for us to 
create a scenario where Mr. Gates could give unlimited amounts of money 
rather than the old $2,000 of hard money, or a Microsoft PAC could give 
more than $10,000, to just have it be unlimited I believe almost 
inherently, as the Supreme Court would say, creates an appearance of 
corruption that is bad for Microsoft, bad for the Justice Department, 
and bad for our country.
  We have never permitted this in the past. We have never permitted 
corporations to give this kind of money. We have never permitted unions 
to give this kind of money. Essentially in the last 5 years, one way to 
describe this: This kind of negative influence of money and politics, 
which will always be there, has gone from the retail--$2,000, $10,000--
to the wholesale side. We now have the wholesale purchase of public 
policy, or the appearance thereof, in this country.
  I will simply quote from a Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial from 
October 13, 1999. This summarizes this very well, the fact that it is 
worth it to prohibit corporations and unions and individuals from 
giving unlimited contributions to the political parties. The editorial 
says:

       Later this week, when the Senate tries again to pass 
     campaign-finance reform, opponents will argue that Congress 
     shouldn't abridge the right of citizens to express their 
     opinions through their checkbooks. Sen. Mitch McConnell, the 
     Republicans' legendary fund-raiser from Kentucky, told the 
     Washington Post this week: ``Somebody needs to protect the 
     right of Americans to project their message.''
       This is a plausible argument in a society that values free 
     speech. Except that some of the people with the biggest 
     checkbooks say it's a load of bunk.
       Listen to Rob Johnson, corporate vice president for public 
     affairs at Cargill Inc.: ``Even if money doesn't buy 
     influence, it is perceived to buy influence. That perception 
     erodes peoples' confidence in their government and their 
     willingness to participate in the electoral process.''
       Consider Marilyn Carlson Nelson of the Carlson Companies, 
     or James Porter, a vice president at Honeywell. Both are 
     active in the Committee for Economic Development (CED), a New 
     York study group of influential corporate executives. After 
     researching the cost of political campaigns, the CED 
     concluded last summer: `Candidates spend an inordinate amount 
     of time fundraising, reducing the time they spend 
     communicating their ideas to constituents.''
       If these powerful executives--the very people who might 
     benefit most from checkbook politics--can see the corrupting 
     influence of money in campaigns, it's astonishing that the 
     Senate cannot.
       And yet reform will almost certainly die in the Senate this 
     month, for the third time in as many years. Though a 
     promising bill just passed the House and has majority support 
     in the Senate, reformers cannot muster the votes to break a 
     GOP filibuster.
       The point is not that big donors always get their way. 
     Populists can point to the occasional victory--the recent 
     House vote on patient' rights, for example, or President 
     Clinton's veto of the big GOP tax cut.
       The point is that big money has taken politics out of the 
     hands of citizens and delivered it into the hands of cynics. 
     Promising candidates refuse to run for office because they 
     can't face begging for cash. Talented incumbents shirk their 
     legislative work to raise money for the next campaign. 
     Citizen volunteers drop out of politics because the old forms 
     of participation--pounding lawn signs and calling neighbors--
     have given way to slick direct mail and vicious TV spots. 
     Voters eventully understand that politcs no longer belongs to 
     them.
       The bill that comes before the Senate this week--a 
     whittled-down reform written by Republican John McCain of 
     Arizona and Democrat Russell Feingold of Wisconsin--wouldn't 
     revoluntionize politics. It would merely ban ``soft money,'' 
     the unregulated form of contributions that has spiraled out 
     of control in recent years. But banning soft money would at 
     least be a start toward healthier politics. Alas, that start 
     must likely await another year, and a Congress with more 
     courage.
       After three fruitless years, the reform effort has grown 
     demoralizing. And yet the marathon debate is useful--it 
     brings new critics to their feet, whets the outrage of 
     intelligent citizens, and drives the obstructionists to ever 
     more desperate tactics.

  This is a good statement of why it is worth it to ban this kind of 
outrageous abuse of our American democracy.
  Justice Souter said it very well at the oral argument in the Shrink 
Missouri Government PAC case just a few days ago; which I had a chance 
to attend. I know this was just a comment from the bench. We don't know 
what the ruling will be. But Justice Souter described exactly what 
these giant contributions have to mean to almost any American. He said:

       Most people assume, and I do, certainly, that someone 
     making an extraordinarily large contribution gets something 
     extraordinary in return.

  I am sure the Court will take notice, if we ever get to that point, 
that many Americans share that view, and it is very significant that 
one of the great Justices of the Supreme Court took notice that it 
gives him the feeling there is an appearance of corruption in this 
system.
  To finally respond to the point the Senator from New Jersey made, the 
Senator from New Jersey said--I don't know what his historical basis 
for this is, but it is an interesting comment: ``We only get a chance 
once every 10 years to do campaign finance reform.'' He said that is 
why we had to do the Shays-Meehan approach rather than the soft money 
ban.
  But this is what I know to be true. Not only is it worth it to ban 
soft money, but if we don't take this opportunity to at least ban soft 
money, there will be no campaign finance reform at all during the 
1990s. The opportunity to have any campaign finance reform will have 
been destroyed by Congress after Congress after Congress. This is our 
chance to break down this system that is destroying anybody's sense 
that there is a system of one person one vote in the United States 
anymore.
  This is a chance. This is the one we must take. This is the one on 
which we must have a yes-or-no vote early next week.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, once again the Senate is considering 
campaign finance reform. As my colleagues know, the House of 
Representatives in September passed a strong, bipartisan reform 
measure. Senators McCain and Feingold have put a bipartisan reform 
proposal before the Senate.
  The House has acted overwhelmingly in favor of reform and the 
majority of Americans support them. It is imperative that the Senate 
pass a tough campaign finance reform measure this year.
  I have consistently supported campaign finance reform since coming to 
Congress. As many of my colleagues know, I started my career in 
politics as a community activist, working to prevent a highway from 
demolishing my Fell's Point neighborhood. I don't want the next 
generation of community activists shut out of the political process. I 
want them to know that their efforts matter. I want to restore each 
American's faith and trust in government. This bill is an important 
step in restoring the faith of the American people and ensuring that 
our citizens have a voice in government.
  Vote after vote in the past has shown that the majority of the United 
States Senate supports the McCain-Feingold reform proposal. 
Unfortunately, through parliamentary tactics and filibuster, a majority 
of the Senate has not been able to work its will on this issue. I hope 
this year will be different, and that we will pass and enact meaningful 
campaign finance reform.
  During my time in the United States Senate, I have voted 19 times to 
end

[[Page 25539]]

filibusters on campaign finance reform. So I know we have a fight on 
our hands. But it is time for action, and it is time for reform. The 
American people are counting on us.
  I believe we need campaign finance reform for a number of reasons. 
First and most important, we need to restore people's faith in the 
integrity of government, the integrity of their elected officials, and 
the integrity of our political process.
  Many Americans are fed up with a political system that ignores our 
Nation's problems and places the concerns of working families behind 
those of big interests. Our campaign finance system contributes to a 
culture of cynicism that hurts our institutions, our government and our 
country.
  When Congress fails to enact legislation to save our kids from the 
public health menace of smoking because of the undue influence of Big 
Tobacco, it adds to that culture of cynicism. When powerful health care 
industry interests are able to block measures to provide basic patient 
protections for consumers who belong to HMOs, that adds to the culture 
of cynicism. Is it any wonder that Americans do not trust their elected 
leaders to act in the public interest?
  It's time for the Senate to break this culture of cynicism. We can 
enact legislation to eliminate the undue influence of special interests 
in elections.
  How does this bill do that? First of all, it stems the flood of 
unregulated, unreported money in campaigns. It will ban soft money, 
money raised and spent outside of federal campaign rules and which 
violates the spirit of those rules.
  During the 1996 Presidential election cycle, the political parties in 
America raised a record $262 million. In just the first six months of 
the 2000 election cycle, the parties have raised an astounding $55.1 
million. That's 80% more than they raised in the same period of the 
1996 cycle. The need to shut down the growing soft money machine is 
clear.
  This bill will also codify the Beck decision, by allowing non-union 
members who pay fees in lieu of union dues to obtain a refund of the 
portion of those fees used for political activities. Unions play a 
vital role in our political process. This provision enables unions to 
more accurately reflect the views of their members.
  These are reasonable reforms. They will help get the big money and 
the secret money out of campaigns. They will help to strengthen 
democracy and strengthen the people's faith in their elected officials.
  Mr. President, we can improve our political process, making it more 
fair and more inclusive, without compromising our rights under the 
Constitution.
  By limiting the influence of those with big dollars, and increasing 
the influence of those with big hearts, we can bring government back to 
where it belongs--with the people.
  The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act will help us to do that, and I am 
proud to support it and encourage my colleagues to do likewise.

                          ____________________